\n";
X
Xclose(TOPICS);
END_OF_FILE
if test 7960 -ne `wc -c ; Sat, 6 Jan 1996 16:14:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from gsp@localhost) by village.ios.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id TAA17529; Sat, 6 Jan 1996 19:04:44 -0500
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 1996 19:04:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Pfarrer
To: MacMikeal
cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Help!!
In-Reply-To: <3104097.ensmtp@calunet.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
You can get a mailing list host for a small fee from the PoBox company.
They use the majordomo program.
URL: http://www.pobox.com/p2/other.html
On Fri, 5 Jan 1996, MacMikeal wrote:
> I maintain a E-Mail mailing list titled The East Tennessee List. It currently
> has around 100 subscribers. Currently I have had to split the list into 4
> address book entries on my internet provider. Each message has to be sent to
> me and then I have to make 4 copies of each and manually send them back out.
> I wrote to the man I heard of that wrote a program called List Processor. He
> suggested to write you and see if any one site would become host to my list? I
> need to be able to have a "closed" list that is any subscribing to the list be
> done by me. The subscriber would be able to unsubscribe himself. Digest
> operation would need to be available.
> This is a list that is made available to Preachers who preach for the
> Conservative branch of the churches of Christ.
> If you can help please E-mail me.
>
> Mike Hughes
> 204 Prairie Street
> Lowell, IN 46356
> (219)696-2436
> MacMikeal@calunet.com
>
>
> Also subscribe me to your list.
>
> - via BulkRate 2.1
>
>
> --
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Sent via CaluNET Online, Inc.
> The premier online information service for the calumet region
> Voice Customer Service: 219.937.5757
> Call Customer Service to request an account and client software
> Internet Email: admin@calunet.com
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>
$**************************************************************************$
* Daniel Pfarrer (DP108) SBA: daniel.pfarrer@sbaonline.gov *
* CEO & System Administrator CompuServe: 71324.212@compuserve.com *
* of GSP Services, Inc. Sys Admin: admin@gsp.com *
* Located in Washington, DC, USA Business: dpfarrer@gsp.com *
* For more info, e-mail info@gsp.com gsp@village.ios.com *
* "Balance the Budget!" WWW: http://village.ios.com/~gsp/ *
$**************************************************************************$
From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 7 12:14:39 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id MAA15323 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 12:09:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miso.wwa.com (miso.wwa.com [198.49.174.33]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id MAA15318 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 12:09:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by miso.wwa.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #2)
id m0tZ1O0-000Y1eC; Sun, 7 Jan 96 14:08 CST
Message-Id:
From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin)
Subject: How was "-request" coined?
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 14:08:12 -0600 (CST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
The discussion came up in November or December about people who don't find
out what the "-request" suffix really means and assume that it's where one
sends requests ... not in the correct sense of requests about the list but
under the pre-jumped conclusion that the address is for requests about the
topic. Non-members write there with questions that they should (join the
list for and then) ask on the list, thinking they've reached some sort of
question-and-answer service.
When I ran the Toyota Corolla List, people used to write in out of the blue
asking for parts and manuals (and only a few of them made any reference to
willingness to pay for the items, much less the shipping) or for free repair
or purchase advice. I still run the Party of Five List, and people write to
its -request address asking for information about the stars or even photo-
graphs, not to mention production and broadcast schedules.
So I'm wondering, how was the suffix "-request" coined? How did the conven-
tion of calling the two addresses "listname@site" and "listname-request@site"
get started? What was the reasoning behind those two particular names, if
anyone on this list in 1996 ever knew and still remembers? (Yes, I under-
stand why there are two addresses and not just one; anyone who explains that
to me did not read my question.)
David Tamkin
From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 7 14:14:40 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id OAA17197 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 14:02:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from schoneal.com (wildride.schoneal.com [206.81.38.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id OAA17189 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 14:01:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from meo@localhost) by schoneal.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) id QAA25254; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 16:01:01 -0600
Message-Id: <199601072201.QAA25254@schoneal.com>
Subject: Re: How was "-request" coined?
To: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin)
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 16:01:01 -0600 (CST)
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To:
From: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal)
Reply-To: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal)
Organization: Schober O'Neal, Inc / Net Ads
X-WWW-URL: http://www.schoneal.com/~meo/
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
David W. Tamkin said...
|
|So I'm wondering, how was the suffix "-request" coined? How did the conven-
|tion of calling the two addresses "listname@site" and "listname-request@site"
|get started? What was the reasoning behind those two particular names, if
|anyone on this list in 1996 ever knew and still remembers? (Yes, I under-
|stand why there are two addresses and not just one; anyone who explains that
|to me did not read my question.)
Please add me top the list.
Please remove me from the list.
Sounds like requests to me...
-Miles
meo@schoneal.com
From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 7 16:19:35 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id PAA18496 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 15:35:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.102.244.42] (pb520.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.42]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id PAA18475; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 15:35:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: brent@miles.greatcircle.com
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 15:35:22 +0100
To: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin), list-managers@greatcircle.com
From: Brent@GreatCircle.COM (Brent Chapman)
Subject: Re: How was "-request" coined?
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 2:08 PM 1/7/96, David W. Tamkin wrote:
>So I'm wondering, how was the suffix "-request" coined? How did the conven-
>tion of calling the two addresses "listname@site" and "listname-request@site"
>get started? What was the reasoning behind those two particular names, if
>anyone on this list in 1996 ever knew and still remembers? (Yes, I under-
>stand why there are two addresses and not just one; anyone who explains that
>to me did not read my question.)
An interesting question... I did a little digging (the net is a wonderful
thing!), and I think I may have found it...
First, a key piece of trivia: RISKS, HUMANETS, and SF-LOVERS are some of
the oldest mailing lists on the Internet, having been started back before
it even WAS the Internet. I.e., when these lists were started, it was
still the ARPANET, and people's email addresses were simply hostnames,
without a domain part, such as "Brent@UCBARPA"; often, in fact, it was
shown as "Brent at UCBARPA". I figured I'd go back through the archives of
these very old lists, and see if I could find the first reference to
"-request" in each.
The very first issue of RISKS-Digest from August 1, 1985 says that
administrative requests should be directed to "RISKS-Request@SRI-CSL.ARPA",
so the convention was already well-established by that time.
I couldn't find an on-line archive of HUMANETS, but I didn't look very hard.
I think I hit paydirt with SF-Lovers, though. Below is a message I came up
with from the first volume of the SF-Lovers archive (available for
anonymous FTP from sflovers.rutgers.edu; the full file reference is
ftp://sflovers.rutgers.edu/pub/sf-lovers/Digest/sf-lovers.v1), from 1979.
Unless Roger Duffey (the author of the message below, and the manager of
the SF-LOVERS mailing list at the time) was copying the practices of some
other list, it looks like he invented the -request convention for
SF-Lovers. I don't see any indication that he was taking the idea from
somebody else, though; the text above makes it sound like he'd just come up
with this idea to solve the problem at hand.
I find it particularly amusing that "how to manage mailing lists" (i.e.,
the charter of List-Managers) was apparently already a topic of
consideration and debate in 1979... :-)
-Brent
----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------
Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | 1057 West Dana Street
Brent@GreatCircle.COM | http://www.greatcircle.com | Mountain View, CA 94041
----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------
Internet Tutorials from the Experts!
>Date: 30 DEC 1979 0058-EST
>From: DUFFEY at MIT-AI (Roger D. Duffey, II)
>Subject: I'm in charge! (and with a loooong message too)
>To: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI
>
>Alan and everyone,
>
> Peace Alan. Either I have sent messages or someone else
>has announced about four times now that I am responsible for
>maintaining the SF-LOVERS mailing list. My name is Roger
>Duffey, and my net address is DUFFEY@MIT-AI. After tonight
>you can also send complaints/questions/requests about the
>SF-LOVERS mailing list to SF-LOVERS-REQUEST@MIT-AI and they
>will automatically be forwarded to me.
> Actually, the majority of the people requesting to be
>added to SF-LOVERS have been sending mail directly to me,
>not to everyone. Otherwise you would all be seeing somewhat
>more mail than you are. This list is not only active but is
>still growing. It has been my policy when I add someone to
>the mailing list to send them something like the following
>message. In the event that some of you may not have seen it,
>or know its contents, I will repeat it here:
>
> Subject: Welcome to SF-LOVERS!
>
> You have now been added to the SF-LOVERS mailing
> list. An archive of all past messages sent to the list
> is kept in the file AI:DUFFEY;_DATA_ SF. Feel free to
> peruse it, but please be very careful not to modify it.
>
> BTW, I am the maintainer of the mailing list. If
> you ever have any problems/questions about the list,
> please send me some mail rather than everyone. (eg.
> if you sent a message to the list and the COMSAT gave
> you a cryptic error, etc.) I will then reply directly
> to you as needed with a solution/answer.
>
> Also if you tell someone about SF-LOVERS please
> ask them to send their requests to be added directly
> to DUFFEY@MIT-AI.
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Roger
>
> The statement in the last paragraph is the key actually.
>People asking to be added to SF-LOVERS are not on SF-LOVERS
>and will not have seen this message. When you tell someone
>about the list you need to remember to tell them to send
>their requests directly to me.
> There is a problem however, and that is remembering that
>"me" is DUFFEY@MIT-AI (and you better not forget the E either).
>To avoid this I have installed a new feedername for mail. The
>name is SF-LOVERS-REQUEST and all it does is redirect mail to
>me. Therefore:
>
> If you ever have any problems/questions about the list,
> please send mail to SF-LOVERS-REQUEST@MIT-AI, rather than
> to everyone. Also if you tell someone about SF-LOVERS,
> please ask them to send their requests to be added directly
> to SF-LOVERS-REQUEST@MIT-AI (or MIT-MC or MIT-ML or MIT-DM).
>
>For Alan.
>
> Enjoy,
> Roger
From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 7 16:44:39 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id QAA19366 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 16:35:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id QAA19361 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 16:35:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LunaCity.UUCP by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA23446
(5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for list-managers@greatcircle.com); Sun, 7 Jan 1996 16:34:13 -0800
Received: by LunaCity.com (1.65/waf)
via UUCP; Sun, 07 Jan 96 15:23:38 PST
for list-managers@greatcircle.com
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Cc: ala@hustle.rahul.net
Subject: Re: How was "-request" coined?
From: ala@LunaCity.com (alyson l abramowitz)
Message-Id:
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 96 15:23:17 PST
In-Reply-To:
Organization:
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
ala@LunaCity.com (alyson l abramowitz) writes:
> Long, long, ago; Far, far away, in the days of the ARPAnet....
>
> David asks if anyone remembers how and when the names listname@site
> and listname-request@site were created. As an oldster on the list
> of an ancient 30something in age, I remember this.
>
> I believe both terms were created by Roger Duffey. Roger was
> an MIT graduate student who tried to keep a science fiction interest
> list from overrunning the DEC-10 machine he was using for research.
>
> I have the printouts I could look up the year in. 1979/80 sounds
> about right. I'm not off by more than a year.
>
> Back in those days, that particular DEC-10 (MIT-AI) and its
> sister MIT machines had some interesting mailing software on it
> which allowed someone to send to a distribution list name and have
> it exploded to all of its members (something few other pieces of
> mailing software supported gracefully).
>
> The list in question threatened to overwhelm MIT-AI. So Roger
> bundled up a days worth of messages into a digest. So the
> SF-Lover's Digest (and digest lists, in general) were born.
>
> I believe Roger created the -Request versus the mailing list
> convention shortly after he started inventing the Digest. The
> original packagings were very primitive and developed over
> a (relatively short) period of time to have a complex indexing
> system (which only 15 years later we are in a position to take
> advantage of now).
>
> Having a -Request mailbox made it possible to automate much of
> the process of physically making a digest once messages were
> selected and ordered (tho I don't think Roger actually did
> this; others of us did; he was on a funky OS so we couldn't
> share software easily). The two streams also allowed for the
> potential automation of add/deletes that LISTSERV eventually
> provided.
>
> Although I ran one of the major redistributions of that list,
> I never thought to ask Roger why he picked -Request as the
> name for administrative requests. He had had a lot of background
> in moderating groups. He always contented that he used much of
> the same techniques on the digest lists. I don't know. Perhaps
> it was just as simple as thinking that people were asking for a
> request to be added or removed.
>
> I find it interesting that people were asking you for parts and
> other such questions. When I did my stints as moderator (many
> years ago) those kinds of requests never occured. Maybe its
> just that the world and the Internet has changed.
>
> I know one thing I did when I was handling redistribution and
> moderating was to educate my list members about how to communicate
> and what was acceptable net behavior. Every one of the early
> digest lists came with a welcome letter explaining this kind of
> stuff (a concept Roger created for the Internet). And when someone
> didn't behave appropriately, I would send them a polite message
> in my moderator/redistributor role explaining why their behavior
> was in violation of net behavior/rules (and sometimes rejecting
> a contribution or suggesting revision).
>
> Well, David, you've got me feeling all nostalgic now. Maybe I'll
> get energetic and go reread those old printouts I've lugged from
> house to house for years (I still have a copy of the original lists
> in TOPS-20 tape format, too!).
>
> Best,
> Alyson
>
>
From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 7 18:29:39 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id SAA20877 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 18:16:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id SAA20867 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 18:16:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LunaCity.UUCP by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA29296
(5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for list-managers@greatcircle.com); Sun, 7 Jan 1996 18:15:10 -0800
Received: by LunaCity.com (1.65/waf)
via UUCP; Sun, 07 Jan 96 17:54:49 PST
for list-managers@greatcircle.com
To: Brent@GreatCircle.COM (Brent Chapman)
Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: How was "-request" coined?
From: ala@LunaCity.com (alyson l abramowitz)
Message-Id:
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 96 17:48:36 PST
In-Reply-To:
Organization:
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
There were many lists before Risks, Human-Nets, and SF-Lovers.
Only they were small and many were manually done. SF-Lovers was
the first huge mailing list on the Internet (then the ARPAnet).
I believe Human-Nets came next. There were a number of other
lists that came after that: Telecom-Digest and WorkS, come to
mind. I believe Risks came much later on the scene. SFL,
Human-Nets, and Telecom-Digest were already in operation by 1981.
Best,
Alyson
PS The comment about being able to find the administrator is why
Roger created the -Request box. Why he called it that rather than
some other name, I don't know.--ala
From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 7 22:14:40 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id WAA25328 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 22:02:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from taz.hyperreal.com (taz.hyperreal.com [204.62.129.130]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id WAA25319; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 22:02:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id WAA25984; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 22:01:37 -0800
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 22:01:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Behlendorf
To: Brent Chapman
cc: "David W. Tamkin" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: How was "-request" coined?
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Sun, 7 Jan 1996, Brent Chapman wrote:
> >Date: 30 DEC 1979 0058-EST
> >From: DUFFEY at MIT-AI (Roger D. Duffey, II)
> >Subject: I'm in charge! (and with a loooong message too)
> >To: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI
...
> > Subject: Welcome to SF-LOVERS!
> >
> > You have now been added to the SF-LOVERS mailing
> > list. An archive of all past messages sent to the list
> > is kept in the file AI:DUFFEY;_DATA_ SF. Feel free to
> > peruse it, but please be very careful not to modify it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ha!
Brian
From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 8 06:59:41 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id GAA06304 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 06:51:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miso.wwa.com (miso.wwa.com [198.49.174.33]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id GAA06299 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 06:51:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by miso.wwa.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #2)
id m0tZIub-000Y4YC; Mon, 8 Jan 96 08:51 CST
Message-Id:
From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin)
Subject: Re: How was "-request" coined?
To: meo@schoneal.com
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 08:51:01 -0600 (CST)
Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com
In-Reply-To: <199601072201.QAA25254@schoneal.com> from "Miles O'Neal" at Jan 7, 96 04:01:01 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Thanks to Alyson Abramowitz and Brent Chapman for their glimpses into the
origins of the "-request" suffix.
But Miles O'Neal gave me this pat (as in what he did to his own back) answer:
| Please add me top the list.
| Please remove me from the list.
|
| Sounds like requests to me...
Miles, you missed the point. Try reasoning forward (from the viewpoint of
someone who isn't already familiar with the suffix "-request" and is trying
to come up with a convention) instead of backward (from the perspective of
somebody justifying a choice already made).
Yes, a case can be made for "-request," but lots of other choices would have
been logical at that point as well, and they would not have had the same
problems today (they might have had different ones that -request doesn't
have). I wanted to know why, out of all the ideas possible, "-request" got
chosen. Why not "-changes" or "-membership"? If either of those had become
the standard, and someone asked today how they came about, anyone could say
what Miles O'Neal did: "add me, remove me -- those sound like changes to me"
or "add me, remove me -- those sound like mail about list membership to me."
And it still wouldn't answer the question.
Then again, if I had used corolla-changes instead of corolla-request, people
would write in thinking I would take their cars in trade, replace their
parts, or upgrade their options.
With the advantange of hindsight from 1996, I am seriously considering
changing the aliases for the list I still run to something grossly obvious
like listname-submissions and listname-subscriptions. That won't help for
replies, since virtually nobody pays attention to whether his or her MUA
picked out the right reply address, but it will for original mailings.
listname@site and listname-request@site will still have to be active (if only
to return autoreplies that this list breaks convention) because people will
assume they exist.
David W. Tamkin dattier@wwa.com MCI Mail: 426-1818
From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 8 07:29:41 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id HAA07274 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 07:26:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from schoneal.com (wildride.schoneal.com [206.81.38.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id HAA07269 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 07:26:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from meo@localhost) by schoneal.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) id JAA02741; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 09:27:17 -0600
Message-Id: <199601081527.JAA02741@schoneal.com>
Subject: Re: How was "-request" coined?
To: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 09:27:16 -0600 (CST)
Cc: meo@schoneal.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com
In-Reply-To: from "David W. Tamkin" at Jan 8, 96 08:51:01 am
From: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal)
Reply-To: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal)
Organization: Schober O'Neal, Inc / Net Ads
X-WWW-URL: http://www.schoneal.com/~meo/
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
David W. Tamkin said...
|
|But Miles O'Neal gave me this pat (as in what he did to his own back) answer:
Nah. I do occasionally scratch it, tho.
|| Please add me top the list.
|| Please remove me from the list.
||
|| Sounds like requests to me...
The early net was primarily composed of literate, thoughtful people.
Or at least geeks. The -request concept was of, by and for such people.
These people usually at least glanced at the instructions, or go the
whole rundown from a net-savvy friend.
As the net grew, it was made up more and more of people with less and
less experience, consideration, intelligence, or whatever (there are
plenty of others as well, but this number grew, and so did the percentage).
So what was obvious then is counter-intuitive for many netters today.
-Miles, you scratch my monitor, I'll pat yours.
From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 8 09:06:30 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id IAA09074 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 08:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ncar.UCAR.EDU (ncar.ucar.edu [192.52.106.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id IAA09069; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 08:31:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199601081630.JAA14872@ncar.ucar.EDU>
Received: by ncar.ucar.EDU (NCAR Local/ NCAR Central Post Office 03/11/93)
id JAA14872; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 09:30:00 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: How was "-request" coined?
To: ala@LunaCity.com (alyson l abramowitz)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 96 9:29:59 MST
Cc: Brent@GreatCircle.COM, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: ; from "alyson l abramowitz" at Jan 7, 96 5:48 pm
From: woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> There were many lists before Risks, Human-Nets, and SF-Lovers.
> Only they were small and many were manually done. SF-Lovers was
> the first huge mailing list on the Internet (then the ARPAnet).
> I believe Human-Nets came next. There were a number of other
> lists that came after that: Telecom-Digest and WorkS, come to
> mind. I believe Risks came much later on the scene. SFL,
> Human-Nets, and Telecom-Digest were already in operation by 1981.
I believe that these were also the intial set of fa.* newsgroups, the
first mailing lists to be gatewayed into USENET newsgroups ("fa" stood
for "From ARPAnet"). Back in ancient times when we actually exchanged
news over long distance UUCP links :-) Not so ancient, really. The Internet
as we know it really got started in 1987 with the advent of NSFnet, when
for the first time sites that were not defense contractors could participate
in long-haul IP connections. I actually won a special commendation
for rearranging our long distance newsfeeds to go over this new network,
initially using UUCP-over-TCP and then switching to NNTP which was
brand new then, since when I did that our long distance phone bill
dropped by $1500/month (which was more than enough for the managers
to take notice). So now you have an idea of how much it cost
a backbone site to do news in those days.
Back to the subject at hand, when I came onto the net in
1981, these fa.* newsgroups already existed. My mail address I would
include in postings to those groups was menlo70!hao!woods@BERKELEY,
which is how folks on ARPAnet would have addressed me. For the UUCP
groups, net.* at the time, it was ucbvax!menlo70!hao!woods; we
always had to give our address relative to a well-known site and
assume that anyone wanting to reach us would know how to get there. It
turns out that my boss at the time, the sysadmin for the "hao" system,
had some contacts at Menlo Park, hence we had a UUCP link to menlo70.
That's how the net was connected in those days.
As for why "-request" was chosen instead of some other suffix that
might now be less confusing: I challenge you to come up with anything
that won't be confusing to SOMEONE. The truth is, in those days most of
the people on the net were fairly computer literate; the "clueless
newbie" syndrome simply didn't exist. Roger Duffey was innovative but
not clairvoyant. Most likely, it simply never occurred to him that it
really mattered what name he chose; he just needed something to serve
the function. I also doubt that he really intended to set a standard
when he did that; he was just trying to solve an immediate problem with
one particular list.
--Greg
From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 8 09:55:02 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id JAA10649 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 09:35:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gateway.fmp.com (gateway.fmp.com [198.3.116.18]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id JAA10630 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 09:35:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from castle.fmp.com (castle.fmp.com [198.3.116.19]) by gateway.fmp.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA14052 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 11:34:38 -0600
Message-Id: <199601081734.LAA14052@gateway.fmp.com>
X-Sender: fmouse@gateway.fmp.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 11:34:34 -0600
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
From: Lindsay Haisley
Subject: Re: How was "-request" coined?
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Perhaps the most logical choice would have been "-listrequest", but then
history has a way of justifying mistakes....
At 08:51 AM 1/8/96 -0600, you wrote:
>Yes, a case can be made for "-request," but lots of other choices would have
>been logical at that point as well, and they would not have had the same
>problems today (they might have had different ones that -request doesn't
>have).
(______)
Lindsay Haisley (oo) "The bull
FMP Computer Services /------\/ stops here!"
fmouse@fmp.com / | ||
Austin, Texas, USA * ||---|| * * * * * *
(512) 259-1190 ~~ ~~ http://www.fmp.com
From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 8 10:34:35 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id KAA11413 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 10:05:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id KAA11408 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 10:05:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.10/SMI-4.1/Brent-951213)
id KAA06711; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 10:02:18 -0800
Received: from hustle.rahul.net(192.160.13.2) by mycroft via smap (V1.3mjr)
id sma006708; Mon Jan 8 10:01:12 1996
Received: from LunaCity.UUCP by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA21796
(5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for list-managers@greatcircle.com); Mon, 8 Jan 1996 10:01:47 -0800
Received: by LunaCity.com (1.65/waf)
via UUCP; Mon, 08 Jan 96 09:57:26 PST
for list-managers@greatcircle.com
To: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin)
Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: How was "-request" coined?
From: ala@LunaCity.com (alyson l abramowitz)
Message-Id: <6iceHD3w165w@LunaCity.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 96 09:45:52 PST
In-Reply-To:
Organization:
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
David,
I hope you don't go through with the change you are proposing
for a number of reasons. First, by not following convention
you make it harder for your subscribers. Second, unless you
only handle subscriptions (not special requests, archive requests,
mailing problems, etc), the names you propose become confusing
in a different manner.
Tho I'm reluctant to try to read Roger's mind of more than 15 years
ago, the -request address always had functions beyond adds/deletes.
So maybe that is why he picked the word: what every message had
in common was a request.
My suspicion is that the list@site convention came from the already
in usage requirement of his software. Roger simply set the list@site
address to a file.
And, just to mop up a few other related comments from others, the
archives for SFL were rarely munged despite the fact that it would
have been easy to do so (all you needed to do was to edit the file
and save it with some modification: MIT-AI had NO file protection).
We also had lots of people coming on to the ARPAnet in the early days
that didn't have a clue. Some were even fairly computer
illiterate (e.g., admins). The numbers were smaller. When they
goofed we took them aside and politely read them the riot act. The
large lists were some of the most obvious places where they appeared.
Remember, ALL the initial large lists were technically not supposed
to exist (the net was for DOD/work traffic only). They were ignored
by the Powers That Be only if certain rules (like non-commercialism)
happened. A remember spending quite a bit of time explaining that
to our readers (all behind the scenes).
Best,
Alyson
dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) writes:
> Thanks to Alyson Abramowitz and Brent Chapman for their glimpses into the
> origins of the "-request" suffix.
>
> But Miles O'Neal gave me this pat (as in what he did to his own back) answer:
>
> | Please add me top the list.
> | Please remove me from the list.
> |
> | Sounds like requests to me...
>
> Miles, you missed the point. Try reasoning forward (from the viewpoint of
> someone who isn't already familiar with the suffix "-request" and is trying
> to come up with a convention) instead of backward (from the perspective of
> somebody justifying a choice already made).
>
> Yes, a case can be made for "-request," but lots of other choices would have
> been logical at that point as well, and they would not have had the same
> problems today (they might have had different ones that -request doesn't
> have). I wanted to know why, out of all the ideas possible, "-request" got
> chosen. Why not "-changes" or "-membership"? If either of those had become
> the standard, and someone asked today how they came about, anyone could say
> what Miles O'Neal did: "add me, remove me -- those sound like changes to me"
> or "add me, remove me -- those sound like mail about list membership to me."
> And it still wouldn't answer the question.
>
> Then again, if I had used corolla-changes instead of corolla-request, people
> would write in thinking I would take their cars in trade, replace their
> parts, or upgrade their options.
>
> With the advantange of hindsight from 1996, I am seriously considering
> changing the aliases for the list I still run to something grossly obvious
> like listname-submissions and listname-subscriptions. That won't help for
> replies, since virtually nobody pays attention to whether his or her MUA
> picked out the right reply address, but it will for original mailings.
> listname@site and listname-request@site will still have to be active (if only
> to return autoreplies that this list breaks convention) because people will
> assume they exist.
>
> David W. Tamkin dattier@wwa.com MCI Mail: 426-1818
>
From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 8 13:29:42 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id NAA16104 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 13:03:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from access.netaxs.com (access.netaxs.com [198.69.186.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id IAA08760 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 08:13:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unix2.netaxs.com (jgreshes@unix2.netaxs.com [198.69.186.4]) by access.netaxs.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) with ESMTP id LAA21084 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 11:13:23 -0500
Received: (jgreshes@localhost) by unix2.netaxs.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA20390; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 11:13:15 -0500
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 11:13:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Commercial Suicide
cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: How was "-request" coined?
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Mon, 8 Jan 1996, David W. Tamkin wrote:
> chosen. Why not "-changes" or "-membership"? If either of those had become
> the standard, and someone asked today how they came about, anyone could say
> what Miles O'Neal did: "add me, remove me -- those sound like changes to me"
> or "add me, remove me -- those sound like mail about list membership to me."
> And it still wouldn't answer the question.
>
But -request may be the best word to use. On some lists the -request
address does all kinds of things: not just add and subtract people, but
also serve files, receive files, give help messages, give faqs, etc.
About the only thing that would make as much sense would be -admin
instead of -request.
> Then again, if I had used corolla-changes instead of corolla-request, people
> would write in thinking I would take their cars in trade, replace their
> parts, or upgrade their options.
>
> With the advantange of hindsight from 1996, I am seriously considering
> changing the aliases for the list I still run to something grossly obvious
> like listname-submissions and listname-subscriptions. That won't help for
> replies, since virtually nobody pays attention to whether his or her MUA
> picked out the right reply address, but it will for original mailings.
> listname@site and listname-request@site will still have to be active (if only
> to return autoreplies that this list breaks convention) because people will
> assume they exist.
I hate to break this to you, but there are incredibly stupid people on
the net. I like Harlan Ellision's line: "Give an idiot a computer and
you get an idiot with a computer." No matter what you change the aliases
to, there will still be enough stupid people to annoy you. There is no
limit on the number of stupid people. There the one's that can't figure
out how to work birth control, so they actually procreate at a far higher
rate than intelligent people.
We can spend all the time in world debating whether to use this word or
that word, but you are never going to make your lists or aliases idiot proof.
Jason
From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 10 12:42:35 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id LAA05052 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 11:30:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id LAA04815 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 11:29:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.10/SMI-4.1/Brent-951213)
id FAA23859; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 05:11:24 -0800
Received: from gizmo.lut.ac.uk(158.125.96.46) by mycroft via smap (V1.3mjr)
id sma023798; Wed Jan 10 05:07:57 1996
Received: from localhost (martin@localhost) by gizmo.lut.ac.uk (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA22792; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 13:07:36 GMT
Message-Id: <199601101307.NAA22792@gizmo.lut.ac.uk>
To: martin@mrrl.lut.ac.uk
X-URI:
Subject: Possible Hypermail problem and fix
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed ;
boundary="===_0_Wed_Jan_10_12:43:15_GMT_1996"
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 13:07:31 +0000
From: Martin Hamilton
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
This is a multipart MIME message.
--===_0_Wed_Jan_10_12:43:15_GMT_1996
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sorry for the cross-posting, but I guess this will interest anyone
who uses Hypermail to archive their mailing lists...
A subscriber was complaining that his posts weren't being archived,
and on investigation I discovered that Hypermail would get confused
and fall over if given a "Message-Id:" header which doesn't have
the message ID itself enclosed in ''
So, I just thought I'd pass the message on. I've attached a simple
minded (and unofficial) fix for the problem which seems to work for
me - your mileage may vary!
Cheerio,
Martin
--===_0_Wed_Jan_10_12:43:15_GMT_1996
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Description: parse.c.patch - be liberal in what you accept!
*** parse.c.FCS Wed Jan 10 08:25:50 1996
--- parse.c Wed Jan 10 08:45:37 1996
***************
*** 630,636 ****
char *c;
static char msgid[MSGDSTRLEN];
! c = (char *) strchr(line, '' && *c != '\n' && i < MSGDSTRLEN; c++) {
if (*c == '\\')
continue;
--- 630,645 ----
char *c;
static char msgid[MSGDSTRLEN];
! if ((char *)strchr(line, '"
! ** try to recover as best we can
! */
! c = (char *) strchr(line, ':') + 1; /* we know this exists! */
! while (*c && *c == ' ') c++; /* skip spaces before message ID */
! } else {
! c = (char *) strchr(line, '' && *c != '\n' && i < MSGDSTRLEN; c++) {
if (*c == '\\')
continue;
***************
*** 637,642 ****
--- 646,653 ----
msgid[i++] = *c;
}
msgid[i] = '\0';
+
+ if (strlen(msgid) == 0) strcpy(msgid, "BOZO");
return msgid;
}
--===_0_Wed_Jan_10_12:43:15_GMT_1996--
From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 10 13:56:23 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id NAA08890 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 13:10:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miso.wwa.com (miso.wwa.com [198.49.174.33]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id NAA08872 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 13:10:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by miso.wwa.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #2)
id m0ta7m3-000YOWC; Wed, 10 Jan 96 15:09 CST
Message-Id:
From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin)
Subject: Re: How was "-request" coined?
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 15:09:34 -0600 (CST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Miles O'Neal wrote,
O> The early net was primarily composed of literate, thoughtful people.
O> Or at least geeks. The -request concept was of, by and for such people.
O> These people usually at least glanced at the instructions, or go the
O> whole rundown from a net-savvy friend.
Precisely; in 1988, when I first learned about mailing lists, I qualified as
thoughtful (I won't lay claim to "literate") and I did read the instructions.
And "-request" struck me at the time as just as good as anything else ... if
not intuitively obvious, still sensible enough after one learned of it and
easy enough to get used to.
O> So what was obvious then is counter-intuitive for many netters today.
And therein lies the problem: people who are relying on intuition instead of
taking the trouble to get the full scoop. They do whatever they guess sounds
right (or take someone else's authoritatively proclaimed guess as gospel) and
forge ahead. The result of this trial-and-error method is that their errors
become our trials.
Greg Woods wrote,
W> As for why "-request" was chosen instead of some other suffix that
W> might now be less confusing: I challenge you to come up with anything
W> that won't be confusing to SOMEONE.
Indeed; as I have said before -- and even illustrated when I said that if I'd
used "corolla-changes" instead of "corolla-request" non-members would write
to that address asking for option upgrades -- any choice would have had its
drawbacks.
W> I also doubt that [Roger Duffey] really intended to set a standard when
W> he did that; he was just trying to solve an immediate problem with one
W> particular list.
But the pebble started rolling down the snowy slope, and the rest is history.
jgreshes@netaxs.com (who didn't give a surname but I'll use "G>" to cite him)
wrote, immediately after quoting my "corolla-changes" scenario,
G> No matter what you change the aliases to, there will still be enough
G> stupid people to annoy you. ... We can spend all the time in world
G> debating whether to use this word or that word, but you are never going to
G> make your lists or aliases idiot proof.
Right: that is exactly the point I was making Monday. Jason is rephrasing
something I already said.
Finally, Alyson Abramowitz recommended strongly that I not change my list's
aliases to those I was considering. I'd had similar thoughts myself: if I
do change them I won't disable the traditional addresses, because doing that
would confuse not only the clueless newbie types but also the net.veterans
who know about every mailing list except mine. listname-request@site and
listname@site would have to continue working if only to return a short list
of the addresses to use instead, because the convention is well established.
From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 12 09:44:16 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id JAA24155 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 1996 09:37:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from panix3.panix.com (panix3.panix.com [198.7.0.4]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id JAA24150 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 1996 09:37:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from genie@localhost) by panix3.panix.com (8.7/8.7/PanixU1.3) id MAA00319; Fri, 12 Jan 1996 12:36:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Andy Finkenstadt
Message-Id: <199601121736.MAA00319@panix3.panix.com>
Subject: GEnie Online Service Mail Outage (impact on mailing lists)
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 12:36:47 -0500 (EST)
Cc: isp-admin-list@listserv.aol.com
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Greetings,
The entire GEIS and GENIE mail systems linked to the Internet are currently
experiencing difficulty in delivering or receiving internet mail. In the
next few hours mail will start to be returned as undeliverable (the timeout
period is 1 day right now).
Please if you can, avoid defensively unsubscribing users whose mail
addresses end in "genie.com" or "*.geis.com" over the next few days.
I am working actively with GEIS to fix the problem (an over-configured
router) and to implement workarounds to the timeout & delivery problems.
Thank you,
Andy Finkenstadt
GEnie Postmaster (among many other hats)
--
"But I don't have a life. I have a program."
- "The Doctor" Emergency Medical Holographic Program, USS Voyager
Andrew Finkenstadt, Manager of Software Development, The Printing House
Also a GEnie Sysop
From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 14 04:10:48 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id EAA20017 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 04:09:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oulu.fi (ousrvr.oulu.fi [130.231.240.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id EAA20001 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 04:09:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from raita.oulu.fi by oulu.fi (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA11011; Sun, 14 Jan 96 14:08:21 +0200
Received: from haapa.oulu.fi by raita.oulu.fi via ESMTP (950911.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH825/930416.SGI.AUTO)
for id OAA20757; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 14:08:09 +0200
Received: (mhotti@localhost) by haapa.oulu.fi (950911.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH825/8.6.9) id OAA23027; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 14:08:09 +0200
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 14:08:07 +0200 (EET)
From: Marko Hotti
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: FREE 1 yr. magazine sub spam - again! :-I
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On sunday morning I noticed that our two international mailing lists
VOCALIST and FINLANDIA had been attacked. This 'FREE 1 yr. magazine
subscription' spam occurred several times last year and I had to include
extra checks to the MD resend code so that these spams won't get to the
relay. So this actually didn't get to the distribution - luckily! :)
I have included the headers of this spam here. I have also sent notes to
several roots on the hosts appearing in the headers but I think some of
them have no idea of what's going on.
Marko Hotti
System Administrator of lists.oulu.fi
University of Oulu, FINLAND
>From jennie@uni.liverpool.ac.ukSun Jan 14 13:49:04 1996
>Received: from franklin.seas.gwu.edu by phoenix.oulu.fi;
(5.65/1.1.8.2/29Aug94-8.2MPM)
id AA29180; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 03:32:17 +0200
>Received: from [198.70.174.245] (chi-pm2-21.freeppp.com
[198.70.174.245]) by franklin.seas.gwu.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id TAA22800; Sat, 13 Jan 1996 19:25:40 -0500 (EST)
>X-Sender: jennie@uni.liverpool.ac.uk (Unverified)
>Message-Id:
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Reply-To:
please.reply.via.fax.or.via.smail@fax.number.or.smail.address.shown.below
>Approved: moderator
>Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 19:31:20 -0500
>To: jennie@uni.liverpool.ac.uk
>From: jennie@uni.liverpool.ac.uk, steinling@rentwes.org.uk,
chiu@otego.ac.uk,
ronnie@jhg.co.uk, ellen@tci.co.uk, samuels@uni.london.ac.uk,
chen@birmingham.org.uk, chi@manchester.co.uk, wind@rfg1.co.uk,
susans@uni.rhodes.ac.uk, gregor@southampt.n.org.uk,
ellen@plymouth.ac.uk, gfos@fresno.co.uk, trens@uni.london.ac.uk,
jim@uni.london.ac.uk, fharile@plymouth.org.uk, relson@childs.co.uk,
nels@hall.co.uk, sarap@ruv4.co.uk,
gspelling@earthlite.co.uk (Association of
International Students, Executive Board of Directors, UK Chapter)
Subject: ===>> FREE 1 yr. Magazine Sub sent worldwide- 295+ Popular USA Titles
-----> NOTE: Please first read my note which appears below the "Request
for more info Form." Then, to get more info, just fill out the "Request
for More Info" form completely and *FAX* or *SMAIL* it back to the company.
You will get a quick reply via email within 1 business day of receipt of
the info request form below.
From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 14 04:40:46 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id EAA22509 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 04:34:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sacusr.mp.usbr.gov ([140.214.12.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id EAA22504 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 04:34:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by sacto.mp.usbr.gov (MX V4.2 VAX) id 201; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 04:32:05
PST
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 04:32:02 PST
From: "Henry W. Miller"
To: mhotti@raita.oulu.fi
CC: list-managers@greatcircle.com, henrym@sacto.mp.usbr.gov
Message-ID: <0099C5C1.B6F79338.201@sacto.mp.usbr.gov>
Subject: RE: FREE 1 yr. magazine sub spam - again! :-I
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> From: MX%"mhotti@raita.oulu.fi" 14-JAN-1996 04:14:31.75
> Subj: FREE 1 yr. magazine sub spam - again! :-I
>
> On sunday morning I noticed that our two international mailing lists
> VOCALIST and FINLANDIA had been attacked. This 'FREE 1 yr. magazine
> subscription' spam occurred several times last year and I had to include
> extra checks to the MD resend code so that these spams won't get to the
> relay. So this actually didn't get to the distribution - luckily! :)
>
> I have included the headers of this spam here. I have also sent notes to
> several roots on the hosts appearing in the headers but I think some of
> them have no idea of what's going on.
>
> Marko Hotti
> System Administrator of lists.oulu.fi
> University of Oulu, FINLAND
>
> >From jennie@uni.liverpool.ac.ukSun Jan 14 13:49:04 1996
A fake return address as usual. It also hit, besides this group,
COM-PRIV, WAIS-TALK, INFO-VAX & TCP-IP, the latter of which I manage.
Fortunately, I saw it hit and killed it before too many copies got out.
The last time this spam occured, I FAXed the son-of-a-biscuit-eater and
warned him that I would bring charges against him if he ever hit my system
again. I would have liked to have thought that my warning scared him off,
but NOOOO!!!
OK, tomorrow I email the administrators at GWU, FREEPPP (this is
not the first time they've been used as a portal) and SPRINTLINK, who is
the ISP for FREEPPP.
Monday, I'm sending a copy of this to the Postal Inspector for the
Staten Island area.
I'm really getting fed up with this.
> >Received: from franklin.seas.gwu.edu by phoenix.oulu.fi;
> (5.65/1.1.8.2/29Aug94-8.2MPM)
> id AA29180; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 03:32:17 +0200
> >Received: from [198.70.174.245] (chi-pm2-21.freeppp.com
> [198.70.174.245]) by franklin.seas.gwu.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id TAA22800; Sat, 13 Jan 1996 19:25:40 -0500 (EST)
> >X-Sender: jennie@uni.liverpool.ac.uk (Unverified)
> >Message-Id:
> >Mime-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >Reply-To:
> please.reply.via.fax.or.via.smail@fax.number.or.smail.address.shown.below
> >Approved: moderator
> >Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 19:31:20 -0500
> >To: jennie@uni.liverpool.ac.uk
> >From: jennie@uni.liverpool.ac.uk, steinling@rentwes.org.uk,
> chiu@otego.ac.uk,
> ronnie@jhg.co.uk, ellen@tci.co.uk, samuels@uni.london.ac.uk,
> chen@birmingham.org.uk, chi@manchester.co.uk, wind@rfg1.co.uk,
> susans@uni.rhodes.ac.uk, gregor@southampt.n.org.uk,
> ellen@plymouth.ac.uk, gfos@fresno.co.uk, trens@uni.london.ac.uk,
> jim@uni.london.ac.uk, fharile@plymouth.org.uk, relson@childs.co.uk,
> nels@hall.co.uk, sarap@ruv4.co.uk,
> gspelling@earthlite.co.uk (Association of
> International Students, Executive Board of Directors, UK Chapter)
> Subject: ===>> FREE 1 yr. Magazine Sub sent worldwide- 295+ Popular USA Titles
>
> -----> NOTE: Please first read my note which appears below the "Request
> for more info Form." Then, to get more info, just fill out the "Request
> for More Info" form completely and *FAX* or *SMAIL* it back to the company.
> You will get a quick reply via email within 1 business day of receipt of
> the info request form below.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Return-Path:
> Received: from relay3.UU.NET by sacusr.mp.usbr.gov (MX V4.2 VAX) with SMTP;
> Sun, 14 Jan 1996 04:13:50 PST
> Received: from miles.greatcircle.com by relay3.UU.NET with ESMTP id
> QQzyma13443; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 07:12:16 -0500 (EST)
> Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com
> (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id EAA20017 for list-managers-outgoing;
> Sun, 14 Jan 1996 04:09:29 -0800 (PST)
> Received: from oulu.fi (ousrvr.oulu.fi [130.231.240.1]) by
> miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id EAA20001
> for ; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 04:09:19 -0800
> (PST)
> Received: from raita.oulu.fi by oulu.fi (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA11011; Sun, 14 Jan
> 96 14:08:21 +0200
> Received: from haapa.oulu.fi by raita.oulu.fi via ESMTP
> (950911.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH825/930416.SGI.AUTO) for
> id OAA20757; Sun, 14 Jan 1996
> 14:08:09 +0200
> Received: (mhotti@localhost) by haapa.oulu.fi
> (950911.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH825/8.6.9) id OAA23027; Sun, 14 Jan 1996
> 14:08:09 +0200
> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 14:08:07 +0200 (EET)
> From: Marko Hotti
> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
> Subject: FREE 1 yr. magazine sub spam - again! :-I
> Message-ID:
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
> Precedence: bulk
From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 14 14:55:46 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id OAA23500 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 14:48:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from svcs1.digex.net (svcs1.digex.net [204.91.197.224]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id OAA23495 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 14:48:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jjflash.digex.net (dyn000138.belt.digex.net [206.181.16.138]) by svcs1.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA04911; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 17:47:37 -0500
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960114224626.006c392c@access.digex.net>
X-Sender: jjflash@access.digex.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 17:46:26 -0500
To: "Henry W. Miller"
From: Jack
Subject: RE: FREE 1 yr. magazine sub spam - again! :-I
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Hi -
I just wanted to add my voice to those list managers who got this spam.
Fortunately, the one to my list got bounced to me and I haven't yet decided
what to do with it.
At 04:32 AM 1/14/96 PST, Henry W. Miller wrote:
>> From: MX%"mhotti@raita.oulu.fi" 14-JAN-1996 04:14:31.75
>> Subj: FREE 1 yr. magazine sub spam - again! :-I
>
>>
>> On sunday morning I noticed that our two international mailing lists
>> VOCALIST and FINLANDIA had been attacked. This 'FREE 1 yr. magazine
>> subscription' spam occurred several times last year and I had to include
>> extra checks to the MD resend code so that these spams won't get to the
>> relay. So this actually didn't get to the distribution - luckily! :)
Take care,
Jack
**********************************************
jjflash@pobox.com
**********************************************
http://www.pobox.com/~jjflash
**********************************************
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
If not now, when?"
- Hillel
**********************************************
From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 14 15:25:48 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id PAA25217 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 15:11:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from apollo.COSC.GOV (apollo.COSC.GOV [198.94.103.34]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id PAA25210 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 15:11:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from vince@localhost) by apollo.COSC.GOV (8.7.3/8.6.9) id PAA11127; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 15:10:23 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 15:10:22 -0800 (PST)
From: -Vince-
To: Jack
cc: "Henry W. Miller" ,
list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: RE: FREE 1 yr. magazine sub spam - again! :-I
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960114224626.006c392c@access.digex.net>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Sun, 14 Jan 1996, Jack wrote:
Hi everyone,
> I just wanted to add my voice to those list managers who got this spam.
> Fortunately, the one to my list got bounced to me and I haven't yet decided
> what to do with it.
Same thing here as well, it got bounced since they put Approved:
in the header with moderator as the password so I just deleted it... It
happened like once a month or something.
Cheers,
-Vince- vince@COSC.GOV - GUS Mailing Lists Admin - http://www.COSC.GOV/~vince
UC Berkeley AstroPhysics - Electrical Engineering (Honorary B.S.)
Chabot Observatory & Science Center - Board of Advisors
Running FreeBSD - Real UN*X for Free!
Linda Wong/Vivian Chow/Hacken Lee/Danny Chan/Priscilla Chan Fan Club
Mailing Lists Admin
> At 04:32 AM 1/14/96 PST, Henry W. Miller wrote:
>
>
> >> From: MX%"mhotti@raita.oulu.fi" 14-JAN-1996 04:14:31.75
> >> Subj: FREE 1 yr. magazine sub spam - again! :-I
> >
> >>
> >> On sunday morning I noticed that our two international mailing lists
> >> VOCALIST and FINLANDIA had been attacked. This 'FREE 1 yr. magazine
> >> subscription' spam occurred several times last year and I had to include
> >> extra checks to the MD resend code so that these spams won't get to the
> >> relay. So this actually didn't get to the distribution - luckily! :)
>
> Take care,
> Jack
> **********************************************
> jjflash@pobox.com
> **********************************************
> http://www.pobox.com/~jjflash
> **********************************************
> "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
> If I am only for myself, what am I?
> If not now, when?"
> - Hillel
> **********************************************
>
>
From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 15 11:25:51 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id LAA19264 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 11:11:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rw.realworks.com (rw.realworks.com [204.215.48.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id LAA19258 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 11:11:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chipmunk (rschrock.realworks.com [204.215.48.22]) by rw.realworks.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA00970 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 13:15:04 -0600
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 13:15:04 -0600
Message-Id: <199601151915.NAA00970@rw.realworks.com>
X-Sender: rschrock@realworks.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
From: Randy Schrock
Subject: The "WHO" command
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
I and running a new installation of Majordomo v1.93. Everything is working
well. I have a quick questions:
Is there a way of running an moderate=no, subscribe_policy=open list and
limiting the ability of the "WHO" command? I have the private_* parameters
set to yes.
Thanks in advance.
Randy Schrock - rschrock@realworks.com - http://www.realworks.com/schrock
President, Schrock & Associates, Inc. - Westwood, KS - (913) 432-8880
From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 16 07:55:54 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id HAA25789 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 07:55:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from liverbird.liverpool.ac.uk (livbird.liv.ac.uk [138.253.31.12]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id HAA25774 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 07:55:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from liverbird.liverpool.ac.uk by liverbird.liverpool.ac.uk
via Local channel id <20321-0@liverbird.liverpool.ac.uk>;
Tue, 16 Jan 1996 15:53:05 +0000
Subject: Re: FREE 1 yr. magazine sub spam - again! :-I
To: henrym@sacto.mp.usbr.gov (Henry W. Miller)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 15:53:03 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: mhotti@raita.oulu.fi, list-managers@greatcircle.com,
henrym@sacto.mp.usbr.gov
In-Reply-To: <0099C5C1.B6F79338.201@sacto.mp.usbr.gov> from "Henry W. Miller" at Jan 14, 96 04:32:02 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME7]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alan Thew
Message-ID:
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
In the last mail, Henry W. Miller wrote:
>
> > From: MX%"mhotti@raita.oulu.fi" 14-JAN-1996 04:14:31.75
> > Subj: FREE 1 yr. magazine sub spam - again! :-I
>
> >
> > On sunday morning I noticed that our two international mailing lists
> > VOCALIST and FINLANDIA had been attacked. This 'FREE 1 yr. magazine
> > subscription' spam occurred several times last year and I had to include
> > extra checks to the MD resend code so that these spams won't get to the
> > relay. So this actually didn't get to the distribution - luckily! :)
> >
> > I have included the headers of this spam here. I have also sent notes to
> > several roots on the hosts appearing in the headers but I think some of
> > them have no idea of what's going on.
> >
....
>
> OK, tomorrow I email the administrators at GWU, FREEPPP (this is
> not the first time they've been used as a portal) and SPRINTLINK, who is
> the ISP for FREEPPP.
Glad that some people actually realised that nobody and the University
of Liverpool was responsible. Don't people ever look at headers? (no
need to answer... )
>
> Monday, I'm sending a copy of this to the Postal Inspector for the
> Staten Island area.
>
> I'm really getting fed up with this.
>
> > >Received: from franklin.seas.gwu.edu by phoenix.oulu.fi;
> > (5.65/1.1.8.2/29Aug94-8.2MPM)
> > id AA29180; Sun, 14 Jan 1996 03:32:17 +0200
> > >Received: from [198.70.174.245] (chi-pm2-21.freeppp.com
> > [198.70.174.245]) by franklin.seas.gwu.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id TAA22800; Sat, 13 Jan 1996 19:25:40 -0500 (EST)
> > >X-Sender: jennie@uni.liverpool.ac.uk (Unverified)
> > >Message-Id:
> > >Mime-Version: 1.0
> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > >Reply-To:
> > please.reply.via.fax.or.via.smail@fax.number.or.smail.address.shown.below
> > >Approved: moderator
> > >Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 19:31:20 -0500
> > >To: jennie@uni.liverpool.ac.uk
> > >From: jennie@uni.liverpool.ac.uk, steinling@rentwes.org.uk,
>
--
Alan Thew
alan.thew@liv.ac.uk ...!uknet!liv!alan.thew Tel: +44 151 794-4497
University of Liverpool, Computing Services Fax: +44 151 794-4442
From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 16 09:40:54 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id JAA00709 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 09:39:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gateway.fmp.com (gateway.fmp.com [198.3.116.18]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id JAA00695 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 09:39:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from castle.fmp.com (castle.fmp.com [198.3.116.19]) by gateway.fmp.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA21038 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 11:37:47 -0600
Message-Id: <199601161737.LAA21038@gateway.fmp.com>
X-Sender: fmouse@gateway.fmp.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 11:38:27 -0600
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
From: Lindsay Haisley
Subject: RE: FREE 1 yr. magazine sub spam - again! :-I
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
>
> OK, tomorrow I email the administrators at GWU, FREEPPP (this is
>not the first time they've been used as a portal) and SPRINTLINK, who is
>the ISP for FREEPPP.
It may or may not be relevant, but I received a personal spam today which
also bore a transmission header supplied by freeppp.com. I'm appending the
headers from this below for the information of anyone who may be able to use
the information.
>X-POP3-Rcpt: fmouse@gateway
>Return-Path: rofli@ibm.net
>Received: from slip-1.slip.net (slip-1.slip.net [204.160.88.10]) by
gateway.fmp.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA20088 for ;
Tue, 16 Jan 1996 09:01:16 -0600
>From: rofli@ibm.net
>Received: from [198.70.174.208] (chi-pm4-14.freeppp.com [198.70.174.208])
by slip-1.slip.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id FAA25721; Tue, 16 Jan 1996
05:14:04 -0800
>X-Sender: injured@ixc.net (Unverified)
>Message-Id:
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 06:45:00 +0130
>To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>Subject: "Dead Doctors Don't Lie"
>
>*************************** New Vision
International****************************
>
> I HATE TO SELL, I HATE TO RECRUIT, I HATE MEETINGS AND 1 ON 1
> PRESENTATIONS;
>
>But I found a way to get rich in NETWORK MARKETING
>and now I'm ready to reveal the simple secret to you:
>
> "DEAD DOCTORS DON'T LIE"
>
>This amazing audio tape is the best sponsoring tool I have ever seen.
>In my first month I sponsored 110 people and in 10 weeks my group
>grew to 749. NO MEETINGS, NO 1 ON 1 PRESENTATIONS, NO RECRUITING
>PHONE CALLS, AND NO SELLING. All I have done is mail the tape to
>people and let it do all of the work.
>blah, blah, blah, etc....
(______)
Lindsay Haisley (oo) "The bull
FMP Computer Services /------\/ stops here!"
fmouse@fmp.com / | ||
Austin, Texas, USA * ||---|| * * * * * *
(512) 259-1190 ~~ ~~ http://www.fmp.com
From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 16 12:40:53 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id MAA08042 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 12:13:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from utep.el.utwente.nl (utep.el.utwente.nl [130.89.30.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id MAA08018 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 12:13:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scin1.el.utwente.nl by utep.el.utwente.nl with SMTP id AA14910
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 16 Jan 1996 21:03:43 +0100
Received: from SCINTILLA_RULES/SpoolDir by scin1.el.utwente.nl (Mercury 1.21);
16 Jan 96 21:10:33 +0100
Received: from SpoolDir by SCINTILLA_RULES (Mercury 1.21); 16 Jan 96 21:10:09 +0100
From: "Fred van Dijk"
Organization: EE Study Association 'Scintilla'
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 21:10:00 +0100
Subject: Errors-To: header with mailinglists?
Reply-To: f.vandijk@scintilla.utwente.nl
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Message-Id: <54BB8AF63DE@scin1.el.utwente.nl>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Hello,
I've been reading the messages on this newsgroup for a while and have
finally reached the level of complete despair, giving me the strenght to
send this question :-)
I'm the manager of a list with +/- 200 members. This amount of subscribers
implies that there are always a few address incorrect, not reachable,
server down, full mailbox, etc. This is normal. In every message there
is an errors-to header which sends reports of these failures to me.
For some obscure reason some of these failure-messages are not always sent
to me only, but to the original sender of the message too! And the original
sender of the message hasn't got the smallest clue what has happened and
asks me what's going wrong.
I am subscribed to several mailing-lists and they never send me these
error-messages, so my question is: how do you do that?
Is there someone who has had the same experience or knows the cause of
this?
Greetings,
Fred van Dijk
From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 17 02:56:24 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id CAA08534 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 02:41:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id CAA08503 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 02:41:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by felix.dircon.co.uk id AA04022
(5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Wed, 17 Jan 1996 10:39:42 GMT
Received: from diversity.org.uk(193.128.226.199) by amnesiac via smap (V1.3)
id sma003993; Wed Jan 17 10:39:16 1996
From: nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Errors-To: header with mailinglists?
Organization: Digital Diversity
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 10:33:53 GMT
Message-Id:
References: <54BB8AF63DE@scin1.el.utwente.nl>
To: list-managers@stonewall.demon.co.uk
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
In article <54BB8AF63DE@scin1.el.utwente.nl> FRED@scintilla.utwente.nl (Fred van Dijk) writes:
>For some obscure reason some of these failure-messages are not always sent
>to me only, but to the original sender of the message too! And the original
>sender of the message hasn't got the smallest clue what has happened and
>asks me what's going wrong.
>
>I am subscribed to several mailing-lists and they never send me these
>error-messages, so my question is: how do you do that?
The problem stems from a huge number of different mailers, all around
the world, that handle errors in different ways.
The correct way for errors to be handled on the Internet should be for
them to be sent back to the address in the envelope (which will also
usually appear in the From line at the start of the headers).
You can't always set this in your mailer; it'll depend on how your
system is set up.
The way that I currently ensure the correct address is present,
regardless of the mail system being used, it to use a script on my
list software that initiates an SMTP chat with the local host for the
messages. (It also sorts addresses according to a specified domain
list, allowing slow addresses to have their own copy of the message in
the queue).
In a real world, that would be sufficient. But there are some systems
that ignore the envelope address (especially gateways, which seem to
have a problem; I had a lot of hassle with various home-spun JANet
systems, too). Errors-To: is recognised by some of these. And some
others will use the Reply-To: address, so you could set that to the
list admin address (but there are equally good reasons not to).
The busiest list I run is a lesbian and gay one, where we try not to
disclose the membership. These bounces (and there are ways, some
rather crude, of forcing them) will often reveal the presence of
someone on the list who may not be out, or want their membership know.
So, I've done quite a lot of fiddling over the years to try and ensure
that it's not possible to find out who's on the list. It doesn't
support commands like 'who,' strips out Acknowledge-To and
Return-Receipt-To headers, inserts an Errors-To for the list admin
address, has the list-admin address in the envelope, and sets Reply-To
to the list, which filters out postings from non members.
Unfortunately, there are still mailers out there that will send errors
back to the From: address, in spite of all that. For most lists,
that's probably not a significant enough number to worry about.
In this particular case, there's some rather more substantial header
re-writing that turns headers like this:
>From nigel@diversity.org.uk
To: uk-motss@dircon.co.uk
From: nigel@diversity.org.uk (Nigel Whitfield)
into this:
>From uk-motss-request@dircon.co.uk
To: Multiple recipients of list
X-Original-From: nigel@diversity.org.uk (Nigel Whitfield)
From: UKM-Nigel Whitfield
Reply-To: uk-motss@dircon.co.uk
Errors-To: uk-motss-request@dircon.co.uk
I'm well aware that there are people who will think that utterly
horrible, and I wouldn't recommend it for many lists, but if you
consider it important that there be no errors sent back to members,
for whatever reason, then it's probably about the only way to reliably
take account of all the broken mailers out there.
Nigel.
--
Nigel Whitfield
nigel@diversity.org.uk Digital Diversity
nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk and uk-motss
***** All demon.co.uk sites are independently run internet hosts *****
From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 18 06:42:13 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id FAA21075 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 1996 05:56:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id FAA20810 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 1996 05:55:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.10/SMI-4.1/Brent-951213)
id WAA07336; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 22:40:39 -0800
Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu(128.169.94.141) by mycroft via smap (V1.3mjr)
id sma007285; Wed Jan 17 22:39:37 1996
Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK)
id BAA03327; Thu, 18 Jan 1996 01:41:24 -0500
Message-Id: <199601180641.BAA03327@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore
To: f.vandijk@scintilla.utwente.nl
cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com, moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Errors-To: header with mailinglists?
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 16 Jan 1996 21:10:00 +0100."
<54BB8AF63DE@scin1.el.utwente.nl>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 01:41:16 -0500
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> I am subscribed to several mailing-lists and they never send me these
> error-messages, so my question is: how do you do that?
First of all: Errors-To should never be used in outgoing mail, and
it should never be honored by any MTA. Errors-To is not a standard
header. MTAs should *always* send error messages to the envelope
return address, which appears in the MAIL FROM command of the SMTP
envelope, or if not in SMTP, in the Return-Path header.
Every MTA that I know of that supports Errors-to also does things
the right way if Errors-To is not present, so it's arguably better
to leave Errors-to out of the message. What's more, the presence of
multiple possible error reporting addresses makes for ambiguous handling
at best (where does the message go if there is a choice?). (and no,
setting them all to point to the same place doesn't always work
because there's a possibility that list down stream will rewrite
one of them and not the other.)
Second: if you run a list, the way you get bounces to go to the list
maintainer is to set the envelope return path (SMTP MAIL FROM) to
point to the address of the list maintainer. This isn't done by
adding a message header. If the list sends mail using sendmail,
the -f command-line option can be used to set the envelope return path.
Third: many mailers and gateways are broken in that they return mail
to the header From address instead of the envelope return address.
Some lists set the From address on outgoing mail to point to the
list (a very ugly thing to do IMHO), and try to filter error messages
to keep them from being sent back to the list. I've seen
disasterous results from this approach, either because the list filtered
out perfectly valid messages, or because the list let some slip through.
Some lists do this better than others, but fortunately, most lists just
set the envelope return address to the right place and leave
the From header alone.
What this generally means is that the list maintainer gets bounces
from mailers that work, and the submitter of a message gets bounces
from broken mailers. (but at least they don't go to the whole list)
Keith Moore
From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 18 11:42:11 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id LAA18172 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 1996 11:27:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sgi.sgi.com (SGI.COM [192.48.153.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id LAA16928 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 1996 11:14:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lunch.engr.sgi.com by sgi.sgi.com via ESMTP (950405.SGI.8.6.12/910110.SGI)
for id LAA09957; Thu, 18 Jan 1996 11:13:30 -0800
Received: by lunch.engr.sgi.com (950511.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH526/940406.SGI.AUTO)
for list-managers@greatcircle.com id LAA03028; Thu, 18 Jan 1996 11:13:27 -0800
From: close@lunch.engr.sgi.com (Diane Barlow Close)
Message-Id: <199601181913.LAA03028@lunch.engr.sgi.com>
Subject: What to do about magazines and books?
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 11:13:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0a8s]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
I run several private mailing lists and have had the great misfortune to
have them "mentioned" in a dozen national magazines and several books
over the past two years. None of the magazines or their reporters
or any editor has EVER contacted me before printing the "information"
on my lists. ALL have provided incorrect information about my lists.
This includes, in four cases, a non-existant "home address" for me, so
readers could write to me for more information -- even though I have no
further information I can provide by regular mail.
Even Internet World, who should know better, printed information
about my lists without ever asking me if I wanted the info printed, or
ever checking with me to see if the information they had was correct.
It was not. They printed an incorrect address for two of my lists that
was over two years out of date!
Every single time my lists have been mentioned, always incorrectly, my
site has been flooded with angry letters to the postmaster demanding
to know where my list(s) is and expressing frustration over their not
being able to subscribe using the bad directions published in the book
or magazine.
I have never, ever asked or wanted to be published in any magazine or
book. My lists run by the good graces of my host site with the condition
that I am no burden to their system. Now that magazines and books are
publishing false information, without ever checking with me, the mailing
list owner, I have been forced to consider closing subscriptions or even
the lists themselves, to limit further harrassement of my postmaster
and myself.
Far too much "busy work" and damage has been done by the bad information
circulating about something that's my private, personal, volunteer hobby.
What can be done about stopping this flood of bad information circulating
without any checks ever being done? Is it a hopeless task? What happened
to journalistic ethics and lessons on source checking? To me this is far
more damaging than any spamming anyone could do to my lists.
--
Diane Close
I'm at lunch all day. :-)
If a Canadian Had Said It First (The Globe & Mail):
"Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of a peacekeeping mission!"
From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 18 12:47:18 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id MAA19857 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 1996 12:17:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sgi.sgi.com (SGI.COM [192.48.153.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 19 15:54:10 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id PAA27354 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 1996 15:45:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hera.cuci.nl (hera.cuci.nl [194.183.100.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id PAA27347 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 1996 15:45:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from srb@localhost)
by hera.cuci.nl (8.7.3/BuGless_1.02) id AAA09592; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 00:44:00 +0100
Message-Id: <199601192344.AAA09592@hera.cuci.nl>
From: srb@cuci.nl (Stephen R. van den Berg)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 00:43:58 +0100
In-Reply-To: "David Johnson (Exchange)"'s message as of 1996 Jan 19 Fri 11:19.
To: "David Johnson (Exchange)" ,
"'list-managers@greatcircle.com'"
Subject: Re: Automated replies and mailing lists
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
"David Johnson (Exchange)" wrote:
>I am working with some software that can generate automated replies to
>messages users receive. Currently, the software sends these replies to the
>address in the Reply-To 822 header if present; otherwise the From header.
I'd say, always use the Return-path (AKA From_) information in your case
then.
However, there are some things you can do to prevent replying to lists (several
clues in the header of the incoming mail can reveal a mailinglist).
Also, a widely used practice in autoresponders that use procmail/formail
is to add:
X-Loop: your@own.mail.address
to your outgoing header. Also, *preserve* any existing X-Loop: fields that
were present on the incoming mail.
Now, before you generate the autoreply, check if
"X-Loop: your@own.mail.address" was already part of the header of the
incoming mail.
Even in the odd case that you'd miss some kind of mailinglist or other
alias, having the X-Loop: field in there is kind of a last minute insurance
to prevent infinite loops (it's not foolproof, but better than nothing).
If the autoreplies do not need to be replied to at all, then make sure
you set your return-path to <> before sending of the autoreply.
--
Sincerely, srb@cuci.nl
Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless).
This is a day for firm decisions! Or is it?
From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 19 17:09:10 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id QAA00307 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 1996 16:52:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maki.wwa.com (maki.wwa.com [198.49.174.21]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id QAA00302 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 1996 16:52:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miso.wwa.com by maki.wwa.com with smtp
(Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0tdRWS-000rLoC; Fri, 19 Jan 96 18:51 CST
Received: by miso.wwa.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #2)
id m0tdRWR-000YNNC; Fri, 19 Jan 96 18:51 CST
Message-Id:
From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin)
Subject: Re: Automated replies and mailing lists
To: djohnson@wspu.MICROSOFT.com (David Johnson)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 18:51:11 -0600 (CST)
Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com
In-Reply-To: from "David Johnson" at Jan 19, 96 11:19:38 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
David Johnson wrote,
| (The best solution might be to not
| send the automated replies at all, but that is not an option at this point.)
Well, move to the next point so that it can be an option. Why do you want to
send automated replies to items that your users receive from mailing lists?
Generally autoresponders for people who belong to mailing lists should NOT to
reply to mail from those lists.
If any of the lists I have run had a member whose site sent back any kind of
receipt to every item from the list, I'd ask that member to prevent it, and
if the member could not or would not, I'd take him or her off, requesting
that he or she find email access somewhere else.
I regularly do disable subscriptions of people who let a badly designed
vacation program reply to mailing list items; I write them to explain and
ask them to write to me when they're back in person and will be accepting the
list again so that I can reactivate their subscriptions then. I also ask
them to notify me in the future before they go so that I can turn off their
subscriptions during their absences or at the least to fix their vacation
setups.
From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 20 09:15:55 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id JAA11960 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 09:10:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outsider.bolis.sf-bay.org (bolis.isp.net [204.153.195.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id JAA11946 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 09:10:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hock.bolis.sf-bay.org by outsider.bolis.sf-bay.org with smtp
(Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0tdgkY-00041jC; Sat, 20 Jan 96 09:06 PST
Received: from amillar by hock.bolis.sf-bay.org with smtp
(Smail3.1.28.1 #6) id m0tdgWT-000UreC; Sat, 20 Jan 96 08:52 PST
Message-Id:
Comments: Authenticated sender is
From: "Alan Millar"
Organization: The Bolis Group
To: Keith Moore ,
"'list-managers@greatcircle.com'"
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 08:54:09 -800
Subject: Re: Automated replies and mailing lists
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 19 Jan 96 at 17:33, Keith Moore wrote:
> It's not really clear from RFC 822, but From/Reply-to should probably only be
> used for human-generated replies.
A number of things aren't clear in RFC 822; that's why RFC 1123 was
written.
> many systems incorrectly send error messages (i.e. nondelivery reports) to the
> >From header address. Such lists usually try to filter out error messages,
I'm not sure what you mean by "incorrectly", but RFC1123 clearly
states that non-delivery reports must be sent to the envelope
address, which is the From_ line. That is the only correct address
for error messages to be sent to.
- Alan
----
Alan Millar amillar@bolis.SF-Bay.org
System Administrator http://www.bolis.com
Windows/NT - From the people who brought you EDLIN -Herb Peyerl
From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 20 09:30:52 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id JAA12329 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 09:14:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.102.244.39] (pm-ppp-1.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.39]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id JAA12304; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 09:14:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: brent@miles.greatcircle.com
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 11:13:22 +0100
To: "David Johnson (Exchange)" ,
"'list-managers@greatcircle.com'"
From: Brent@GreatCircle.COM (Brent Chapman)
Subject: Re: Automated replies and mailing lists
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 11:19 AM 1/19/96, David Johnson (Exchange) wrote:
>I am working with some software that can generate automated replies to
>messages users receive. Currently, the software sends these replies to the
>address in the Reply-To 822 header if present; otherwise the From header.
>
>This has caused a problem with at least one mailing list, where the list
>server sets From to the original sender, and sets Reply-To to point to the
>list. The automated replies go to the list instead of the original sender,
>which would be the preferred behavior. (The best solution might be to not
>send the automated replies at all, but that is not an option at this point.)
>One fix I am considering is to reconfigure the software so it sends
>automated replies to the From address instead of Reply-To.
>
>However, I'm concerned that this might introduce problems with other mailing
>lists. If any list servers set the From to point to the list, the problem
>will show up again.
>
>Are any of you list managers out there using such a configuration?
There's a better solution, taken from the UNIX "vacation" program:
auto-replies should ONLY be sent if the address the auto-replier is
monitoring _explicitly_ appears in the "To:" or "Cc:" lines of the header.
This very effectively keeps the auto-replier from replying to mailing list
postings, etc.
-Brent
----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------
Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | 1057 West Dana Street
Brent@GreatCircle.COM | http://www.greatcircle.com | Mountain View, CA 94041
----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------
Internet Tutorials from the Experts!
From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 20 12:30:53 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id MAA26672 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 12:18:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id MAA26667 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 12:18:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.10/SMI-4.1/Brent-951213)
id MAA01334; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 12:14:56 -0800
Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu(128.169.94.141) by mycroft via smap (V1.3mjr)
id sma001332; Sat Jan 20 12:13:55 1996
Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK)
id PAA01349; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 15:14:21 -0500
Message-Id: <199601202014.PAA01349@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore
To: "Alan Millar"
cc: Keith Moore ,
"'list-managers@greatcircle.com'"
Subject: Re: Automated replies and mailing lists
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 20 Jan 1996 08:54:09."
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 15:14:14 -0500
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> On 19 Jan 96 at 17:33, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > It's not really clear from RFC 822, but From/Reply-to should probably
> > only be used for human-generated replies.
>
> A number of things aren't clear in RFC 822; that's why RFC 1123 was
> written.
Yes, but what's your point?
> > many systems incorrectly send error messages (i.e. nondelivery reports)
> > to the From header address. Such lists usually try to filter out error
> > messages,
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "incorrectly", but RFC1123 clearly
> states that non-delivery reports must be sent to the envelope
> address, which is the From_ line. That is the only correct address
> for error messages to be sent to.
By "incorrectly", I mean that systems that send non-delivery messages to
the address in the From header field violate RFCs 821 and 1123.
The so-called From_ line is an artifiact of some UNIX-based mail
program; it's not a standard header field and therefore probably not
relevant to the question posed by the person from Microsoft.
(NB: The From_ line is not the same thing as the From header field.)
Also, while the convention is usually that the From_ line contains
a copy of the envelope return address, this is not universally true.
Sometimes the From_ line contains a reply address, a holdover from
the days when some user agents didn't understand RFC 822 message
headers. Sometimes the From_ line contains a "bang path" version
of the UUCP path back to the sender, which is not quite the same thing
as the envelope return address.
User agents and mail robots should therefore avoid using From_ if
the information is available from a more reliable source. The
standard source of the envelope return address is the Return-Path
header field. This is also clearly indicated in RFC 1123.
Keith Moore
From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 20 16:15:53 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id QAA04954 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 16:01:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sulmail.stanford.edu (sulmail.Stanford.EDU [36.31.0.11]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id QAA04917 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 16:01:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from FOON-ISDN2.stanford.edu (Foon-ISDN2.Stanford.EDU [36.179.0.117]) by sulmail.stanford.edu (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id QAA20084 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 16:02:10 -0800
From: Curtis Foon
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Newsletters
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 15:57:15 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows
X-Authentication: none
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Is is possible to use Majordomo for a monthly newsletter mailer? I don't want this to be a discussion list which
means nobody can post. Is it possible to have the "From:" to be a constant address rather than the person
who sent it. A couple of different people would be generating this newsletter, so I don't want their mail address
on the "From:" line.
-Curtis
------------------------------------
Curtis Foon
cfoon@sulmail.stanford.edu
From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 20 19:15:53 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id TAA10762 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:11:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.erols.com (mail.erols.com [205.252.116.14]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id TAA10757 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from erols.com.erols.com (pppb189.erols.com [206.161.72.189]) by mail.erols.com (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id WAA15490 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 22:07:49 -0500
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 22:07:49 -0500
Message-Id: <199601210307.WAA15490@mail.erols.com>
X-Sender: markb@mail.erols.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Mark Bernkopf
Subject: Electronic Mailing Lists and Electronic Newsletters
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Can anyone recommend an article or a book on publishing e-mail newsletters
-- including software and hardware options? I am familiar with the names of
the listservers and the operating systems. But if there was some article or
publication that put all the information in one place, that would be great.
There are tons of books on Web publishing, but I've not found a single one
on e-mail publishing.
Many thanks.
====================================
Mark Bernkopf
e-mail: markb@mail.erols.com
tel. 703-516-9265
Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A.
====================================
From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 20 19:30:55 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id TAA11080 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:20:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outsider.bolis.sf-bay.org (bolis.isp.net [204.153.195.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id TAA11066 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hock.bolis.sf-bay.org by outsider.bolis.sf-bay.org with smtp
(Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0tdqGq-00040xC; Sat, 20 Jan 96 19:16 PST
Received: from amillar by hock.bolis.sf-bay.org with smtp
(Smail3.1.28.1 #6) id m0tdq1g-000UreC; Sat, 20 Jan 96 19:01 PST
Message-Id:
Comments: Authenticated sender is
From: "Alan Millar"
Organization: The Bolis Group
To: Keith Moore ,
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:02:09 -800
Subject: Re: Automated replies and mailing lists
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 20 Jan 96 at 15:14, Keith Moore wrote:
> > > It's not really clear from RFC 822, but From/Reply-to should probably
> > > only be used for human-generated replies.
> >
> > A number of things aren't clear in RFC 822; that's why RFC 1123 was
> > written.
>
> Yes, but what's your point?
I misunderstood what you meant. My point actually was that RFC 822
isn't as clear as 1123 that error notices should go back to the
envelope sender.
> > > many systems incorrectly send error messages (i.e. nondelivery reports)
> > > to the From header address. Such lists usually try to filter out error
> > > messages,
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "incorrectly", but RFC1123 clearly
> > states that non-delivery reports must be sent to the envelope
> > address, which is the From_ line. That is the only correct address
> > for error messages to be sent to.
> By "incorrectly", I mean that systems that send non-delivery messages to
> the address in the From header field violate RFCs 821 and 1123.
Sorry, it sounded like you were referring to the From_ line (which
in this context I inferred to mean the envelope sender) as being
incorrect. My mistake. You are, of course, absolutely correct that
the From: header is the incorrect place to send it to.
> The so-called From_ line is an artifiact of some UNIX-based mail
> program; it's not a standard header field and therefore probably not
> relevant to the question posed by the person from Microsoft.
>
> (NB: The From_ line is not the same thing as the From header field.)
>
> Also, while the convention is usually that the From_ line contains
> a copy of the envelope return address, this is not universally true.
> Sometimes the From_ line contains a reply address, a holdover from
> the days when some user agents didn't understand RFC 822 message
> headers. Sometimes the From_ line contains a "bang path" version
> of the UUCP path back to the sender, which is not quite the same thing
> as the envelope return address.
>
> User agents and mail robots should therefore avoid using From_ if
> the information is available from a more reliable source. The
> standard source of the envelope return address is the Return-Path
> header field. This is also clearly indicated in RFC 1123.
Interesting; I haven't come across a system that had a reply address
in the From_ line, but it wouldn't surprise me that they're out
there :-) Thanks for the extra info.
- Alan
----
Alan Millar amillar@bolis.SF-Bay.org
System Administrator http://www.bolis.com
What part of 'NO' don't you understand?
From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 21 05:45:54 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id FAA02882 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 1996 05:42:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id FAA02866 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 1996 05:42:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by felix.dircon.co.uk id AA26715
(5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Sun, 21 Jan 1996 13:40:58 GMT
Received: from diversity.org.uk(193.128.226.199) by amnesiac via smap (V1.3)
id smab26683; Sun Jan 21 13:40:43 1996
From: nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Automated replies and mailing lists
Organization: Digital Diversity
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 12:22:43 GMT
Message-Id:
References:
To: list-managers@stonewall.demon.co.uk
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
In article amillar@bolis.sf-bay.org (Alan Millar) writes:
>I'm not sure what you mean by "incorrectly", but RFC1123 clearly
>states that non-delivery reports must be sent to the envelope
>address, which is the From_ line. That is the only correct address
>for error messages to be sent to.
That's all very well, but there are a *lot* of systems out there that
aren't compliant. Maybe I've come across these more because I'm in the
UK, and I suspect that a lot of people simply bodged their old JNT
compliant software to work with the internet protocols.
I regularly receive bounces to the From: address, Reply-To: and
To: list-managers
Nigel.
--
Nigel Whitfield
nigel@diversity.org.uk Digital Diversity
nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk and uk-motss
***** All demon.co.uk sites are independently run internet hosts *****
From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 21 12:30:55 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id MAA10664 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 1996 12:26:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xroads.vthrc.uq.edu.au (xroads.vthrc.uq.edu.au [130.102.4.16]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id MAA10656 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 1996 12:26:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from root@localhost) by xroads.vthrc.uq.edu.au (8.7.3/8.7.3) id GAA07477 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 06:18:22 +1000 (EST)
Received: from arundel.vthrc.uq.edu.au(130.102.4.21) by xroads.vthrc.uq.edu.au via smap (V1.3)
id sma007474; Mon Jan 22 06:18:03 1996
X-Sender: Vthomas@xroads.vthrc.uq.edu.au.
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 06:24:43 +1000
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: D.Thomas@vthrc.uq.edu.au (Danny Thomas)
Subject: Re: Automated replies and mailing lists
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Brent@GreatCircle.COM (Brent Chapman) writes
>There's a better solution, taken from the UNIX "vacation" program:
>auto-replies should ONLY be sent if the address the auto-replier is
>monitoring _explicitly_ appears in the "To:" or "Cc:" lines of the header.
>This very effectively keeps the auto-replier from replying to mailing list
>postings, etc.
vacation does seem to do a good job but at least the one bundled with
NetBSD uses two more heuristics in addition to To/Cc to determine whether
to reply. These are listed at bottom of this comment block extracted from
my deliver.sys script (deliver is an automated mailer).
# 2) determining whether a reply should be generated.
# This decision becomes more important when the program
# is part of the user agent and without access to the
# envelope address. I have also come across a few mailing-
# lists which foolishly use the list address in the
# envelope. Auto-generated noise might be an incentive
# for this aspect to be changed 8-).
# Still we want to minimize returns even if the envelope
# address is reliably good, even if only to cut down on
# the volume of mail admins have to filter.
#
# wrt to (1), we trust that sendmail's $g macro gives us
# what we want.
# wrt to (2), we consider a reply ill-advised when:
# recipient address is not in To or Cc headers
# a few mailing-lists do place recipient there
# so they better have a *-errors reply envelope!
# priority is bulk or junk
# sender address is "postmaster", "uucp", "mailer",
# "mailer-daemon" or "*-request"
# NB these three are from vacation(1)
# the combination of (1) and (2) is probably sufficient,
# and certainly much better than many mail systems use.
cheers,
Danny Thomas (D.Thomas@vthrc.uq.edu.au)
From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 21 23:15:56 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id XAA03547 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 1996 23:03:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.102.244.42] (pb520.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.42]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id XAA03536; Sun, 21 Jan 1996 23:03:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: brent@miles.greatcircle.com
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 23:02:47 +0100
To: dmckeon@swcp.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Brent@GreatCircle.COM (Brent Chapman)
Subject: Re: 3rd party auto-reply mailing list attack
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 1:10 PM 1/21/96, Denis McKeon wrote:
>Brent - I was going to post this, and thought better of it -
>perhaps you would find it useful on the list-managers mailing list.
It's a relevant topic for List-managers.
>This may be an old trick that I've just seen for the first time,
>but one of the mailing lists that I subscribe to just got hit by it.
>
>For lists that support a subscription request format similar to:
>
> subscribe []
>
>the attack method is to put an auto-replying address into the optional
> location. Once the auto-replying address is
>subscribed to the mailing list, every message sent to the list results
>in a copy of the auto-reply info-blurb being sent to either all subscribers
>on the list, or to the original sender of the message, depending on what
>header the auto-replyer replies to, and on whether the list-server
>preserves From: and/or Reply-To: headers from the original sender.
>
>The result is that (all|some of) the list subscribers get apparently
>unsolicited informational blurbs in their inboxes, and blame the auto-replier.
>
>Possible defenses include:
>
>1) mailing list manager software could be configured to ignore and log
> subscription requests for "info@" and perhaps some other very
> commonly used auto-replier addresses.
I'm not sure how effective this will be; there are an awful lot of such
addresses.
>2) mailing list manager software could be configured to continue
> automatically processing subscription requests of the form:
>
> subscribe
>
> with the sending (From: or envelope) address as the
> but to save for manual human processing subscription requests of:
>
> subscribe []
>
> and requests of:
>
> subscribe
>
> where the Reply-To: differs from the sending (From: or envelope) address.
This is what Majordomo does in its standard (recommended) configuration.
>3) mailing list manager software could be configured to automatically
> demand confirmation of subscription requests from all subscribers,
> or from the 3rd party subscription cases in 2), above. Confirming
> all subscriptions seems like overkill, but that's up to the list manager.
This would entail some pretty major changes to Majordomo, to have it keep
track of and eventually purge unconfirmed requests.
>There doesn't seem to be much point in trying to defend against
>this form of attack at the point of the auto-replier software.
>
>Tracing the attacking party might be possible,
Not unless they're particularly stupid.
>but third part subscription requests could be forged,
>perhaps so that they point at a 4th innocent party.
-Brent
----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------
Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | 1057 West Dana Street
Brent@GreatCircle.COM | http://www.greatcircle.com | Mountain View, CA 94041
----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------
Internet Tutorials from the Experts!
From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 22 04:45:59 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id EAA23582 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 04:35:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from antares.mcs.anl.gov (mcs.anl.gov [140.221.9.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id EAA23577; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 04:35:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mcs.anl.gov (obie.mcs.anl.gov [140.221.5.129]) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.10/8.6.10) with ESMTP
id GAA14584; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 06:33:46 -0600
Message-Id: <199601221233.GAA14584@antares.mcs.anl.gov>
To: Brent@GreatCircle.COM (Brent Chapman)
cc: dmckeon@swcp.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM,
rackow@antares.mcs.anl.gov
Subject: Re: 3rd party auto-reply mailing list attack
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 21 Jan 1996 23:02:47 +0100."
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 06:33:43 -0600
From: Gene Rackow
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Brent Chapman made the following keystrokes:
>At 1:10 PM 1/21/96, Denis McKeon wrote:
>>Brent - I was going to post this, and thought better of it -
>>perhaps you would find it useful on the list-managers mailing list.
>
>I'm not sure how effective this will be; there are an awful lot of such
>addresses.
>
>>2) mailing list manager software could be configured to continue
>> automatically processing subscription requests of the form:
>>
>> subscribe
>>
>> with the sending (From: or envelope) address as the
>> but to save for manual human processing subscription requests of:
>>
>> subscribe []
>>
>> and requests of:
>>
>> subscribe
>>
>> where the Reply-To: differs from the sending (From: or envelope) address
> .
>
>This is what Majordomo does in its standard (recommended) configuration.
>
A problem that I think both of you are overlooking is that the bozo could
just munge his From: line to be what he wants and then the
is not needed and the subscription needs no approval. ;-( I've used this
method myself several times when I wanted to subscribe a local exploder to
a remote mailing list without having to wait the several weeks for approval
to happen. I don't see a method that is going to stop these bozo's from
spamming the lists.
--Gene
From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 22 09:38:49 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id JAA01198 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 09:22:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.102.244.42] (pb520.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.42]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id JAA01186; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 09:22:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: brent@miles.greatcircle.com
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 09:22:21 +0100
To: Gene Rackow
From: Brent@GreatCircle.COM (Brent Chapman)
Subject: Re: 3rd party auto-reply mailing list attack
Cc: dmckeon@swcp.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM,
rackow@antares.mcs.anl.gov
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 6:33 AM 1/22/96, Gene Rackow wrote:
>A problem that I think both of you are overlooking is that the bozo could
>just munge his From: line to be what he wants and then the adddress>
>is not needed and the subscription needs no approval. ;-( I've used this
>method myself several times when I wanted to subscribe a local exploder to
>a remote mailing list without having to wait the several weeks for approval
>to happen. I don't see a method that is going to stop these bozo's from
>spamming the lists.
Oh, believe me, I haven't overlooked it. It's a major hassle, but I don't
see any way around it short of going to confirmed subscriptions. And
that's going to be a major headache for mailing list software authors, list
owners, _and_ list subscribers. So far, the cure is worse than the
problem, at least for the lists I run.
-Brent
----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------
Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | 1057 West Dana Street
Brent@GreatCircle.COM | http://www.greatcircle.com | Mountain View, CA 94041
----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------
Internet Tutorials from the Experts!
From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 22 16:19:36 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id QAA25252 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 16:04:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hp_open.open.org (hp_open.open.org [199.2.104.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id QAA25244 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 16:03:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from root@localhost) by hp_open.open.org (8.7/8.7) id QAA22989 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 16:01:50 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 16:01:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199601230001.QAA22989@hp_open.open.org>
Received: from unknown(199.2.104.151) by hp_open.open.org via smap (V1.3)
id sma022985; Mon Jan 22 16:01:42 1996
X-Sender: dan@opengovt.open.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Dan Tucker
Subject: Re: 3rd party auto-reply mailing list attack
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 09:22 AM 1/22/96 +0100, Brent Chapman wrote:
>
>Oh, believe me, I haven't overlooked it. It's a major hassle, but I don't
>see any way around it short of going to confirmed subscriptions. And
>that's going to be a major headache for mailing list software authors, list
>owners, _and_ list subscribers. So far, the cure is worse than the
>problem, at least for the lists I run.
>
>
>-Brent
>
I do know of a system that has a confirm feature that they are using with
majordomo. It sends a confirmation message to all that attempt to subscribe
to a list. For them to subscribe they have to re-subscribe and send a
validation code along with it.
I am attempting to learn more about it and will post the info as soon as I
learn more.
-Dan
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
Daniel Tucker dan@open.org
From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 23 02:33:33 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id CAA02455 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 02:25:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id CAA02450 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 02:24:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by felix.dircon.co.uk id AA18034
(5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Tue, 23 Jan 1996 10:23:37 GMT
Received: from diversity.org.uk(193.128.226.199) by amnesiac via smap (V1.3)
id sma017975; Tue Jan 23 10:23:10 1996
From: Nigel Whitfield
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 09:32:20 GMT
Reply-To: nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
To: list-managers@stonewall.demon.co.uk
Subject: Winmail.dat and its friends
Message-Id: <9601230932.aa19153@fags.stonewall.demon.co.uk>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
One of the lists that I run has recently started receiving
postings from users running Exchange, complete with irritating
WINMAIL.DAT uuencoded enclosures, or application/ms-tnef MIME
parts.
Is there a foolproof way of configuring the exchange client not
to send this stuff, or is it as broken as I suspect? I know you
can turn of MIME in the control panel, but is that what's
resulting in the arguably more offensive UUencoded stuff?
My solution so far is to remove posting permission from those
people who have done this, and screen each of their messages
manually, but this is no good when more than a few people are
using Exchange.
I could alter the list software to check for this stuff, but I
don't really approve of scanning for content in a message. Is
there a simpler alternative (like, perhaps, telling people to use
a particular font in Exchange to avoid the junk being created in
the first place) ?
Nigel.
--
Nigel Whitfield
nigel@diversity.org.uk Digital Diversity
nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk and uk-motss
***** All demon.co.uk sites are independently run internet hosts *****
From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 23 08:03:03 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id HAA17907 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 07:54:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from park.interport.net (park.interport.net [199.184.165.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id HAA17902 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 07:54:39 -0800 (PST)
From: jimmy@interport.net
Received: from jimmy.port.net (jimmy.port.net [205.161.157.35]) by park.interport.net (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA21337 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 10:53:34 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 10:53:34 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199601231553.KAA21337@park.interport.net>
X-Sender: jimmy@interport.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: I need help need your assistance.
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Greetings;
I'm interested in creating a mailing list - to discuss the
advantages/disavantage of an "internet appliances" and the possibility of
having a public Internet access device -.
I was wondering does anyone know a school I can contact to create such
mailing list or do you have any advice on how I should proceed. Thank you
for your assistance.
Sincerely;
Kenold Pierre-Louis
From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 23 17:45:01 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id RAA22125 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 17:30:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from access2.digex.net (access2.digex.net [205.197.245.193]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id RAA22110 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 17:30:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from asgilman@localhost) by access2.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA23710 ; for ; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 20:26:07 -0500
From: Al Gilman
Message-Id: <199601240126.UAA23710@access2.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Winmail.dat and its friends
To: nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 20:26:06 -0500 (EST)
Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com
In-Reply-To: <9601230932.aa19153@fags.stonewall.demon.co.uk> from "Nigel Whitfield" at Jan 23, 96 09:32:20 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Sounds like another opportunity to excel.........at diplomacy.
We had a case where the mail bridge at the LAN level was
converting long messages into enclosures. It wasn't anything
that the user did with their client. [I believe this was cc:Mail
and not uSoft.]
A Microsoft-oriented NewsGroup may be a better place to find the
Exchange expertise that you need as opposed to an
Internet-oriented list such as this.
You don't have to supply Microsoft expertise to your
Microsoft-using list members. Explain that the list serves a
wide variety of users and that the enclosure formats, be they
desktop or MIME, are _not_ legible to many of the people reading
the list. Add it to your welcome message.
Then pump _them_ for the answer. What does one have to do to get
a plain text simple message out of their setup? There is a way.
It will vary by vendor. Before you have shut down three
subscribers, you will likely find one that can figure it out.
Al Gilman
From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 23 20:15:47 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id UAA01665 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 20:08:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from svcs1.digex.net (svcs1.digex.net [204.91.197.224]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) withFrom list-managers-owner Wed Jan 24 07:32:08 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id HAA05669 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 07:20:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gateway.bose.com (gateway.bose.com [139.68.136.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id HAA05650 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 07:20:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nuno.bose.com by gateway.bose.com (8.6.12/BoseFirewall.1.0)
id KAA18715; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 10:19:01 -0500
Received: by nuno.bose.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA18099; Wed, 24 Jan 96 10:20:00 EST
From: hannigan@bose.com (Martin Hannigan)
Message-Id: <9601241520.AA18099@nuno.bose.com>
Subject: Subject: line missing..ack!
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 10:19:58 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23+BOSE]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Hi..
Before I posted, I rtfm'd as many as I could find.
I have a list setup called "foo-bar". When mail is sent to it
no subject line appears. Instead, the subject and date information
seem to be comingled among the actual message text.
>From unix mail client (elm,mailx,etc) I get no subject line.
>From Quickmail (Mac piece 'o *) I get the comingling of data and header.
>From PC/Mac Eudora clients I get the comingling of data and header.
The mailserver is a Sun MP-690 running SunOS 4.4.3_U1 and Majordomo
v1.94.
Example aliases entry:
foo-bar: "|/usr/apps/bose/adm/majordomo/wrapper resend -h Bose.COM -l foo-bar -s foo-bar-outgoing"
foo-bar-outgoing: :include: /usr/apps/bose/adm/majordomo/lists/foo-bar
foo-bar-request: /usr/apps/bose/adm/majordomo/wrapper request-answer foo-bar
foo-bar-approval: username@mailhost
owner-foo-bar: username@mailhost
foo-bar-owner: username@mailhost
From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 24 08:45:25 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id IAA10762 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 08:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.102.244.97] (pb520-ppp.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.97]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id IAA10756; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 08:34:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: brent@miles.greatcircle.com
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 08:34:44 +0100
To: hannigan@bose.com (Martin Hannigan), list-managers@greatcircle.com
From: Brent@GreatCircle.COM (Brent Chapman)
Subject: Re: Subject: line missing..ack!
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 10:19 AM 1/24/96, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>Hi..
>
>
>Before I posted, I rtfm'd as many as I could find.
>
>I have a list setup called "foo-bar". When mail is sent to it
>no subject line appears. Instead, the subject and date information
>seem to be comingled among the actual message text.
>
>>From unix mail client (elm,mailx,etc) I get no subject line.
>>From Quickmail (Mac piece 'o *) I get the comingling of data and header.
>>From PC/Mac Eudora clients I get the comingling of data and header.
>
>The mailserver is a Sun MP-690 running SunOS 4.4.3_U1 and Majordomo
>v1.94.
I seem to recall that this is a bug in Sun's version of Sendmail. Make
sure you've got the latest Sendmail patches from Sun, or better yet,
upgrade to the latest version of Sendmail from Berkeley (from
ftp.cs.berkeley.edu, I think).
-Brent
----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------
Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | 1057 West Dana Street
Brent@GreatCircle.COM | http://www.greatcircle.com | Mountain View, CA 94041
----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------
Internet Tutorials from the Experts!
From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 24 09:45:01 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id JAA13707 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 09:32:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tacoma.nwrain.net (tacoma.nwrain.net [204.71.149.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id JAA13701 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 09:32:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p22.y0.nwrain.net by tacoma.nwrain.net with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #9)
id m0tf92F-000oSmC; Wed, 24 Jan 96 09:31 PST
Received: by p22.y0.nwrain.net with Microsoft Mail
id <01BAEA3E.FC534EE0@p22.y0.nwrain.net>; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 09:33:14 -0800
Message-ID: <01BAEA3E.FC534EE0@p22.y0.nwrain.net>
From: Robert Kapela
To: "jimmy@interport.net" ,
"'Jack Schnapper'"
Cc: "List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM"
Subject: RE: I need help need your assistance.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 09:31:43 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Jack,
You can also try the Spencer-Davis Group at http://www.spencer-davis.com/
----------
From: Jack Schnapper[SMTP:jjflash@pobox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 1996 8:06 PM
To: jimmy@interport.net
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: I need help need your assistance.
At 10:53 AM 1/23/96 -0500, jimmy@interport.net wrote:
>Greetings;
> I'm interested in creating a mailing list - to discuss the
>advantages/disavantage of an "internet appliances" and the possibility of
>having a public Internet access device -.
>
> I was wondering does anyone know a school I can contact to create such
>mailing list or do you have any advice on how I should proceed. Thank you
>for your assistance.
Are you looking for a provider site to host your list? If so, check with
pobox.com (I have 2 lists with them; their pricing and service is the best
I have found).
Jack
--------------------------------------------------------------------
jjflash@pobox.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pobox.com/~jjflash
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
If not now, when?"
- Hillel
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 24 19:16:45 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id SAA17822 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 18:43:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from digital.netvoyage.net (digital.netvoyage.net [205.162.154.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id RAA29450 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 17:30:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from digital.netvoyage.net (digital.netvoyage.net [205.162.154.10]) by digital.netvoyage.net (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA27288; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 17:20:04 -0800
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 17:20:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Brock Rozen
To: Dan Tucker
cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: 3rd party auto-reply mailing list attack
In-Reply-To: <199601230001.QAA22989@hp_open.open.org>
Message-ID:
X-URL: http://www.netvoyage.net/~brozen
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Mon, 22 Jan 1996, Dan Tucker wrote:
> I do know of a system that has a confirm feature that they are using with
> majordomo. It sends a confirmation message to all that attempt to subscribe
> to a list. For them to subscribe they have to re-subscribe and send a
> validation code along with it.
I've seen a similar system, but it wasn't majordomo.
All they had to do was reply to the message with the word OK
If they had a weird system and couldn't reply to the message but had to
send another message or something, they could reply with OK
and thus the system knew it was them....
The system I used was listserv@taunivm.tau.ac.il
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Brock Rozen | Internet: brozen@netvoyage.net |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Check out my homepage at http://www.netvoyage.net/~brozen |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| For automated information on various subjects, send an e-mail to my |
| Internet address with SEND HELP on the SUBJECT line. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 25 03:31:30 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id DAA19659 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 03:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id DAA19652 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 03:17:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by felix.dircon.co.uk id AA15955
(5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 25 Jan 1996 11:16:42 GMT
Received: from diversity.org.uk(193.128.226.199) by amnesiac via smap (V1.3)
id smac15914; Thu Jan 25 11:16:37 1996
Received: from punt4.demon.co.uk by fags.stonewall.demon.co.uk id ag04394;
25 Jan 96 9:50 GMT
Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by mailstore
for list-managers@stonewall.demon.co.uk id 822562550:19754:0;
Thu, 25 Jan 96 09:35:50 GMT
Received: from exchange.microsoft.com ([131.107.243.48])
by punt-4.mail.demon.net id aa18883; 25 Jan 96 9:34 GMT
Received: by yuri.microsoft.com with Microsoft Exchange (IMC 4.0.736)
id <01BAEA6F.81D24320@yuri.microsoft.com>; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 15:20:34 -0800
Message-Id:
From: "David Johnson (Exchange)"
To: "list-managers@stonewall.demon.co.uk" ,
"'nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk'"
Subject: RE: Winmail.dat and its friends
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 15:20:22 -0800
X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.736
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
The Windows 95 Exchange client has an option to send TNEF for each recipient
in the personal address book. Have the user clear the checkbox labeled,
"Always send to this recipient in Microsoft Exchange rich-text format", on
the properties for the list's address in his/her address book.
David C. Johnson
Program Manager - Exchange Product Unit
>----------
>From: Nigel Whitfield[SMTP:nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 1996 1:32 AM
>To: list-managers@stonewall.demon.co.uk
>Subject: Winmail.dat and its friends
>
>One of the lists that I run has recently started receiving
>postings from users running Exchange, complete with irritating
>WINMAIL.DAT uuencoded enclosures, or application/ms-tnef MIME
>parts.
>
>Is there a foolproof way of configuring the exchange client not
>to send this stuff, or is it as broken as I suspect? I know you
>can turn of MIME in the control panel, but is that what's
>resulting in the arguably more offensive UUencoded stuff?
>
>My solution so far is to remove posting permission from those
>people who have done this, and screen each of their messages
>manually, but this is no good when more than a few people are
>using Exchange.
>
>I could alter the list software to check for this stuff, but I
>don't really approve of scanning for content in a message. Is
>there a simpler alternative (like, perhaps, telling people to use
>a particular font in Exchange to avoid the junk being created in
>the first place) ?
>
>Nigel.
>
>--
>Nigel Whitfield
>nigel@diversity.org.uk Digital
>Diversity
>nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk and
>uk-motss
>***** All demon.co.uk sites are independently run internet hosts
>*****
>
From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 25 09:02:15 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id IAA12748 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 08:52:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com (uumail4.netcom.com [163.179.3.54]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id IAA12743 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 08:52:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from znyx.com by netcomsv.netcom.com with SMTP (8.6.12/SMI-4.1)
id IAA05038; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 08:50:50 -0800
Received: from alan.znyx.com by znyx.com (5.65/1.35)
id AA14135; Thu, 25 Jan 96 09:03:09 -0800
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 96 09:03:09 -0800
Message-Id: <9601251703.AA14135@znyx.com>
X-Sender: alan@znyx.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
From: Alan Deikman
Subject: Mystery Forwarder
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Does anyone have a strategy for dealing with this?
I got a complaint from a party NOT on my list that they were receiving
postings. They are also getting unwanted postings from lists that are
not mine. I asked him to send a complete message with headers so that
I could trace it, but when he did there was NOTHING that would indicate
any system between mine and his that touched the message.
Is there any legitimate way for this to happen? Or is there a hacker
with malignant intent that has targetted this guy?
Regards,
--------------------------------
Alan Deikman, ZNYX Corporation
alan@znyx.com
From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 25 11:25:31 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id LAA23531 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 11:05:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pnl.gov (relay.pnl.gov [130.20.20.36]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id LAA23505 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 11:05:44 -0800 (PST)
From: js_dukelow@ccmail.pnl.gov
Received: from ccmail.pnl.gov by pnl.gov (PMDF V4.3-13 #6012)
id <01I0FBA4E51C8Y4WSI@pnl.gov>; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 11:03:37 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 10:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Our first real Spam
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Message-id: <01I0FBAJ0EF28Y4WSI@pnl.gov>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: MESSAGE/RFC822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 13:54 -0800 (PST)
From: cnotes@cnotes.com
To: js_dukelow@ccmail.pnl.gov
MIME-version: 1.0
MIME-version: 1.0
Has any one else seen this particular Spam. We have a medium-sized list
for professionals involved in risk assessment and risk management. The
list is not publically listed (i.e., on PAML, etc.), so we haven't had much
trouble with spamming.
Best regards.
Jim Dukelow
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, WA
js_dukelow@pnl.gov
______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: Author: cnotes@cnotes.com at -SMTPlink
Date: 1/24/96 1:54 PM
set mail digest
+ Join CNI Long Distance - the only FLAT RATE long
+ distance company supporting Peace, Human Rights,
+ the Environment, and the fight against AIDS.
+ Email: longdistance@cnotes.com - we'll send you a
+ reply within 30 seconds.
+ http://www.cnotes.com/telecom/cnitelpage.html
+ For a limited time, new customers receive 100 FREE minutes!
From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 25 13:37:43 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id MAA05253 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 12:54:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id MAA05237 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 12:54:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.10/SMI-4.1/Brent-960123)
id MAA27726; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 12:51:01 -0800
Received: from netcom13.netcom.com(192.100.81.125) by mycroft via smap (V1.3mjr)
id sma027709; Thu Jan 25 12:50:45 1996
Received: from [129.46.82.92] by netcom13.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
id MAA06536; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 12:51:53 -0800
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: Level Seven Design
X-PGP-KeyID-Fprnt: 4AAF00E5 - 30D81F3484E6A83F 6EC8D7F0CAB3D265
X-PGP: http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/htbin/pks-extract-key.pl?op=get&search=lsd
X-Floppyright: (f)1995 LSD.com _ Unlicensed retransmission prohibited.
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 12:51:30 -0800
To: js_dukelow@ccmail.pnl.gov
From: Dave Del Torto
Subject: Re: Our first real Spam
Cc: List Managers List
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
In Reply to the Message wherein it was written:
>Has any one else seen this particular Spam.
I haven't: anyone else? I'm collecting my favorites, though... :)
From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 26 06:47:57 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id GAA04345 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 06:29:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www.sbaonline.sba.gov (www.sbaonline.sba.gov [199.171.55.3]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id GAA04336 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 06:28:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from chuda@localhost) by www.sbaonline.sba.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04882; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 09:26:06 -0500
From: Sury Chudamani
Message-Id: <199601261426.JAA04882@www.sbaonline.sba.gov>
Subject: Load on a Web Server
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 09:26:05 -0500 (EST)
Cc: chuda@www.sbaonline.sba.gov (Sury Chudamani)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Hi:
I have majordomo running on a Sparc 20 with small mailing groups.
I was recently asked to create a group for 500 members with
moderate traffic (whatever that means ??)
The SUN is used as a WEB SERVER so I am curious about how
much of a load this would pose ie. slow down httpd stuff ??
The smaller majordomo groupsthat I currently have are
doing OK, because of limted traffic.
thanks
chuda
--
=====================================================================
Sury Chudamani (Sytel) Phone : (202) 205 - 6399
U.S. Small Business Administration E-Mail: chuda@www.sbaonline.sba.gov
=====================================================================
From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 26 07:24:36 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id HAA05590 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 07:10:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hursley.ibm.com (mersey.hursley.ibm.com [193.129.184.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id HAA05572 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 07:10:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by hursley.ibm.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
id AA82744; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 15:09:09 GMT
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 15:09:09 GMT
Message-Id: <9601261509.AA82744@hursley.ibm.com>
From: ""Sean Davies""
Reply-To: Sean@hursley.ibm.com
X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.0 06sep94)
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Digests
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Can anyone help me ?
I have just set up a new internet mailing list using majordomo V1.93
I am having difficulties creating the digests...
My alias entries are as follows ..
# sample
owner-sample: sean@hursley.ibm.com
sample-approval: sean@hursley.ibm.com
sample: "|/u/majordom/wrapper resend -p bulk -M 10000 -R -l sample
-f owner-sample -h hursley.ibm.com -s sample-outgoing"
sample-digest: sample
owner-sample-outgoing: owner-sample
sample-outgoing::include:/u/majordom/lists/sample, "|/u/majordom/w
rapper digest -r -C -l sample-digest sample-digest-outgoing", "|/u
/majordom/wrapper archive2.pl -a -d -f /u/majordom/archives/sample/ibm-ja
va-test.archive"
owner-sample-digest-outgoing: owner-sample
sample-digest-outgoing::include:/u/majordom/lists/sample-digest
sample-request: "|/u/majordom/wrapper majordomo -l sample"
owner-sample-request: owner-sample
owner-sample-digest-request: owner-sample
sample-digest-request: "|/u/majordom/wrapper majordomo -l sample-d
igest"
My majordomo.cf entry for
$digest_work_dir = '/afs/afs.hursley.ibm.com/u/majordom/digests
I have a sample-digest list in lists and sample-digest directory in
digests.
My archives are being generated OK and each posting is going into the
digests/sample-digest directory as 001 002 003 etc....
But how do I make the digests ???
MKDIGEST sample-digest fails saying there are no messages ??
--
Sean Davies
Workstation and Network Support +-----------------------------------+
IBM UK Laboratories Ltd. | VNET: sean@hursley |
Hursley Park, | Internet: sean@hursley.ibm.com |
Winchester, Hants, +-----------------------------------+
England SO21 2JN
Internal: 7-248974 International: +44 962-818974
From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 26 11:07:53 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id LAA12606 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 11:06:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from access5.digex.net (access5.digex.net [205.197.245.196]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id LAA12601 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 11:06:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from asgilman@localhost) by access5.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA17374 ; for ; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 14:04:53 -0500
From: Al Gilman
Message-Id: <199601261904.OAA17374@access5.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Mystery Forwarder
To: alan@znyx.com (Alan Deikman)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 14:04:52 -0500 (EST)
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <9601251703.AA14135@znyx.com> from "Alan Deikman" at Jan 25, 96 09:03:09 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
From: Alan Deikman
Does anyone have a strategy for dealing with this?
I got a complaint from a party NOT on my list that they were receiving
postings. They are also getting unwanted postings from lists that are
not mine. I asked him to send a complete message with headers so that
I could trace it, but when he did there was NOTHING that would indicate
any system between mine and his that touched the message.
Is there any legitimate way for this to happen? Or is there a hacker
with malignant intent that has targetted this guy?
There may be useful evidence in a log maintained by the MTA from
which the complaining party receives their mail. Also be warned
that MUAs vary a lot in what they can/will do to preserve headers
for you.
Third-party mailbombing hacks are not unheard of. Including
subscribing a victim to megalists. This could even, I suppose,
be a variant where messages addressed to legitimate subscribers
are intercepted and bcc'd to the victim. That would leave no
trace in the subscription info of the list used.
Al Gilman
From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 26 11:23:26 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id LAA12738 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 11:08:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from digital.netvoyage.net (digital.netvoyage.net [205.162.154.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id LAA12733 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 11:08:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from digital.netvoyage.net (digital.netvoyage.net [205.162.154.10]) by digital.netvoyage.net (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA24107 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 11:06:13 -0800
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 11:06:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Brock Rozen
To: List Managers
Subject: Net Problems
Message-ID:
X-URL: http://www.netvoyage.net/~brozen
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Is anybody else experiencing problems with mail to AOL and/or the east
coast and to Europe?
I've been experiencing more problems than normal and was wondering if it
could possibly be because of the weather on the east coast...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Brock Rozen | Internet: brozen@netvoyage.net |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Check out my homepage at http://www.netvoyage.net/~brozen |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| For automated information on various subjects, send an e-mail to my |
| Internet address with SEND HELP on the SUBJECT line. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 26 12:26:18 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id LAA15553 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 11:57:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tango.rahul.net (tango.rahul.net [192.160.13.5]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id LAA15548 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 11:57:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bolero.rahul.net by tango.rahul.net with SMTP id AA24594
(5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 26 Jan 1996 11:54:39 -0800
Received: from jive.rahul.net by bolero.rahul.net with SMTP id AA15175
(5.67b8/IDA-1.5); Fri, 26 Jan 1996 11:54:37 -0800
From: Steve Portigal
Received: by jive.rahul.net (5.67b8/jive-a2i-1.0)
id AA01654; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 11:54:34 -0800
Message-Id: <199601261954.AA01654@jive.rahul.net>
Subject: Re: Net Problems
To: brozen@netvoyage.net (Brock Rozen)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 11:54:32 -0800 (PST)
Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com
In-Reply-To: from "Brock Rozen" at Jan 26, 96 11:06:12 am
Organization: GVO - Interface Design
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
AOL is experiencing delays, they say. I have heard from people who
aren't getting their digest, but AOL describes it as a delay and expects
it to be fixed today.
--
| steve portigal
G V O | user interface dude
| culturally aware interface design
From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 26 12:39:32 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id MAA17433 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 12:36:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aspensys (aspensys.aspensys.com [198.77.70.104]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id MAA17428 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 12:36:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpinet.aspensys.com (smtpgate.aspensys.com) by aspensys (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA01023; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 15:29:08 +0500
Received: from ccMail by smtpinet.aspensys.com (SMTPLINK V2.10.08)
id AA822701399; Fri, 26 Jan 96 15:33:36 EST
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 96 15:33:36 EST
From: "Jim Meritt"
Message-Id: <9600268227.AA822701399@smtpinet.aspensys.com>
To: brozen@netvoyage.net, Steve Portigal
Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Re[2]: Net Problems
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
I just checked. None of the mail gateways listed in their DNS are accepting
email at this time.
Jim
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Net Problems
Author: Steve Portigal at SMTPINET
Date: 1/26/96 4:05 PM
AOL is experiencing delays, they say. I have heard from people who
aren't getting their digest, but AOL describes it as a delay and expects
it to be fixed today.
--
| steve portigal
G V O | user interface dude
| culturally aware interface design
From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 26 13:37:45 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id NAA19314 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 13:09:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.12]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id NAA19282 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 13:09:17 -0800 (PST)
From: PMDAtropos@aol.com
Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA29633; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 16:08:09 -0500
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 16:08:09 -0500
Message-ID: <960126160807_207349947@emout04.mail.aol.com>
To: jmeritt@smtpinet.aspensys.com, brozen@netvoyage.net, stevep@rahul.net
cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Net Problems
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
In a message dated 96-01-26 15:47:12 EST, jmeritt@smtpinet.aspensys.com (Jim
Meritt) writes:
>I just checked. None of the mail gateways listed in their DNS are accepting
>email at this time.
We are accepting connections (I've tested this from two separate hosts) but
they seem to go in spurts. The mail techs are adding several new machines
today and have been reconfiguring the current hosts for the past several
days. As far as I'm aware, the goal is still to have the changes done by
tonight.
--
__ David B. O'Donnell (atropos@aol.net, PMDAtropos@aol.com, Atropos@gnn.com)
\/ AOL Internet Feedback/Response/Information Team Manager, LISTSERV Manager
Tel. 703/453-4000 x4255 FAX 703/453-4102 Pager 800/759-8888 PIN 128-5338
WWW: http://www.cais.com/atropos/ "The spam stops here."
From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 27 10:08:00 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id JAA11890 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 09:59:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from svcs1.digex.net (svcs1.digex.net [204.91.197.224]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id JAA11876 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 09:59:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jjflash.digex.net (dyn000326.belt.digex.net [206.181.17.72]) by svcs1.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA05098 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 12:57:59 -0500
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960127175717.006ced40@access.digex.net>
X-Sender: jjflash@access.digex.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 12:57:17 -0500
To: List Managers
From: Jack Schnapper
Subject: Consensus Sought on Sigs
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
What is the consensus on people using sigs when posting a message to a list?
Thanks,
Jack
--------------------------------------------------------------------
jjflash@pobox.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pobox.com/~jjflash
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
If not now, when?"
- Hillel
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 27 10:13:19 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id JAA11827 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 09:58:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from svcs1.digex.net (svcs1.digex.net [204.91.197.224]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id JAA11813 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 09:58:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jjflash.digex.net (dyn000326.belt.digex.net [206.181.17.72]) by svcs1.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA05079 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 12:56:57 -0500
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960127175615.006c5650@access.digex.net>
X-Sender: jjflash@access.digex.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 12:56:15 -0500
To: List Managers
From: Jack Schnapper
Subject: Majordomo File Retrieval Wuestion
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Is there a way (and if so, what is it) for a listmember to retrieve the
original welcome message that they received when they joined one of my
majordomo lists? Also, is there a way that I can re-send this message to
all members from time-to-time? The reason I am asking this is because I
regularly get messages from members of my lists asking to be removed or how
they can remove themselves. Naturally, majordomo had sent this info to them
when they joined, but they either didn't read it or didn't keep it.
Thanks,
Jack
--------------------------------------------------------------------
jjflash@pobox.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pobox.com/~jjflash
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
If not now, when?"
- Hillel
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 27 10:18:27 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id JAA11634 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 09:54:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from svcs1.digex.net (svcs1.digex.net [204.91.197.224]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id JAA11621 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 09:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jjflash.digex.net (dyn000326.belt.digex.net [206.181.17.72]) by svcs1.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA05051 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 12:53:15 -0500
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960127175234.006729a4@access.digex.net>
X-Sender: jjflash@access.digex.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 12:52:34 -0500
To: List Managers
From: Jack Schnapper
Subject: Re: Net Problems
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 11:06 AM 1/26/96 -0800, Brock Rozen wrote:
>Is anybody else experiencing problems with mail to AOL and/or the east
>coast and to Europe?
>
>I've been experiencing more problems than normal and was wondering if it
>could possibly be because of the weather on the east coast...
I have been experiencing the same problems. It is especially irritating to
me at this time as I just began a new list and have gotten many "delivery
error" messages for the AOL people I have subbed (I manually entered many
names from a hand-written list I was given by someone who collected
addresses of interested people).
Jack
--------------------------------------------------------------------
jjflash@pobox.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pobox.com/~jjflash
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
If not now, when?"
- Hillel
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 27 11:07:49 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id LAA17229 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 11:02:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from haven.uchicago.edu (haven.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.3]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id LAA17189 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 11:02:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from woodlawn.uchicago.edu (root@woodlawn.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.9]) by haven.uchicago.edu (8.6.12/8.6.4) with ESMTP id MAA25768; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 12:56:27 -0600
Received: from woodlawn.uchicago.edu (csdayton@localhost.uchicago.edu [127.0.0.1]) by woodlawn.uchicago.edu (8.7.1/8.7.2) with ESMTP id NAA08322; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 13:00:40 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199601271900.NAA08322@woodlawn.uchicago.edu>
In-reply-to: Jack Schnapper's message of Sat, 27 Jan 1996 12:56:15 -0500
To: Jack Schnapper
cc: List Managers
Subject: Re: Majordomo File Retrieval Wuestion
Reply-To: csdayton@midway.uchicago.edu
References: <2.2.32.19960127175615.006c5650@access.digex.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 13:00:39 CST
From: Soren Dayton
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
the majordomo list might be a better place for this question
Soren
From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 27 11:37:51 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id LAA19613 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 11:37:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ds1.gl.umbc.edu (ds1.gl.umbc.edu [130.85.3.11]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id LAA19608 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 11:37:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from umbc8.umbc.edu (imitni1@f-umbc8.umbc.edu [130.85.3.8]) by ds1.gl.umbc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA06775 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 14:35:51 -0500
Received: (imitni1@localhost) by umbc8.umbc.edu (940816.SGI.8.6.9/8.6.9) id OAA10786; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 14:35:53 -0500
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 14:35:53 -0500 (EST)
From: "mitnick ian ( bs ifsm)"
X-Sender: imitni1@umbc8.umbc.edu
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
i would like not to get this list or email or mail
ian at imitni1@umbc.edu
From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 27 11:48:14 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id LAA18941 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 11:25:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from linden.fortnet.org (linden.fortnet.org [199.45.144.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id LAA18935 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 11:25:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from phredo@localhost) by linden.fortnet.org (8.7.2/8.7.2) id MAA23580; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 12:25:45 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 12:25:44 -0600 (MDT)
From: "Blaine E. Thompson"
Subject: Re: Consensus Sought on Sigs
To: Jack Schnapper
cc: List Managers
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960127175717.006ced40@access.digex.net>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Usually 4 lines is proper netiquette.
Blaine
(phredo@fortnet.org)
On Sat, 27 Jan 1996, Jack Schnapper wrote:
> What is the consensus on people using sigs when posting a message to a list?
>
> Thanks,
> Jack
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> jjflash@pobox.com
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.pobox.com/~jjflash
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
> If I am only for myself, what am I?
> If not now, when?"
> - Hillel
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 27 11:52:53 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id LAA19523 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 11:34:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id LAA19518 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 11:34:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 165.113.1.22 (crl7.crl.com) by mail.crl.com with SMTP id AA27165
(5.65c/IDA-1.5 for ); Sat, 27 Jan 1996 11:30:42 -0800
Message-Id: <199601271930.AA27165@mail.crl.com>
X-Sender: jfh@165.113.1.22
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 11:33:13 -0800
To:
From: Jack Hamilton
Subject: Re: Consensus Sought on Sigs
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 12:57 PM 1/27/96 -0500, Jack Schnapper wrote:
>What is the consensus on people using sigs when posting a message to a list?
>
>Thanks,
>Jack
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
> jjflash@pobox.com
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.pobox.com/~jjflash
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>"If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
> If I am only for myself, what am I?
> If not now, when?"
> - Hillel
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
They shouldn't be as long as yours. Three or four lines max.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton jfh@acm.org Sacramento, California, USA kd6ttl@n0ary
From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 27 12:07:56 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id MAA20782 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 12:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from village.ios.com (village.ios.com [198.4.75.49]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id MAA20777 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 12:02:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from gsp@localhost) by village.ios.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id OAA24521; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 14:55:24 -0500
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 14:55:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Pfarrer
To: "Blaine E. Thompson"
cc: Jack Schnapper ,
List Managers
Subject: Re: Consensus Sought on Sigs
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Sat, 27 Jan 1996, Blaine E. Thompson wrote:
> Usually 4 lines is proper netiquette.
Well, I doubled that, to make it look like a business card.
$**************************************************************************$
* Daniel Pfarrer (DP108) SBA: daniel.pfarrer@sbaonline.gov *
* CEO & System Administrator CompuServe: 71324.212@compuserve.com *
* of GSP Services, Inc. Sys Admin: admin@gsp.com *
* Located in Washington, DC, USA Business: dpfarrer@gsp.com *
* For more info, e-mail info@gsp.com gsp@village.ios.com *
* "Balance the Budget!" WWW: http://village.ios.com/~gsp/ *
$**************************************************************************$
From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 27 13:22:57 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id NAA23471 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 13:21:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zoom.bga.com (zoom.bga.com [198.3.118.20]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id NAA23462 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 13:21:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shlomi.bga.com (apm0-16.realtime.com [204.181.162.16]) by zoom.bga.com (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id PAA01288 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 15:20:33 -0600
Message-Id: <199601272120.PAA01288@zoom.bga.com>
X-Sender: shlomi@bga.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 15:20:03 -0600
To: List Managers
From: Shlomi Harif
Subject: Re: Consensus Sought on Sigs
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Blaine wrote:
>Usually 4 lines is proper netiquette.
>>Jack asked:
>> What is the consensus on people using sigs when posting a message to a list?
I don't know of a _consensus_, but someone with a large .sig is going to
have everyone they send to ticked off at them all the time... ;-}
Your .sig violates Blaine's rule, and mine does as well. I suggest one as
long as it needs to be, and no more. If anything, I find more of a problem
with people replying to e-mail and including all the previous headers and
_other people's_ sigs than one person's individual one...
Shlomi Harif
(sig follows)
--------------------------------------------------
WebSource, Inc. Phone: (800)WebSRC-1
Austin, TX Fax: (512)837-2090
E-mail: shlomi@websrc.com Web: www.websrc.com
Creating Revenue-Generating
Opportunities on the Internet
--------------------------------------------------
From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 27 14:13:58 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id NAA26042 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 13:55:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SYSWRK.UCIS.Dal.Ca (syswrk.UCIS.Dal.Ca [129.173.2.108]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with ESMTP id NAA26022 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 13:55:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from AC.Dal.Ca by SYSWRK.UCIS.DAL.CA (PMDF V4.3-13 #6307)
id <01I0II8I9MDC007S8E@SYSWRK.UCIS.DAL.CA>; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 17:54:25 -0400
Received: from biome.bio.dfo.ca ("port 3321"@biome.BIO.dfo.ca)
by AC.DAL.CA (PMDF V4.3-13 #6307) id <01I0II7YU3HC0017D8@AC.DAL.CA>; Sat,
27 Jan 1996 17:54:03 -0400
Received: by biome.bio.dfo.ca (931110.SGI/931108.SGI.ANONFTP)
for @ac.dal.ca:List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM id AA05175; Sat,
27 Jan 96 17:51:14 -0400
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 17:51:13 -0400 (AST)
From: bill@biome.bio.dfo.ca (Bill Silvert)
Subject: Re: Consensus Sought on Sigs
In-reply-to: <2.2.32.19960127175717.006ced40@access.digex.net> from
"Jack Schnapper" at Jan 27, 96 12:57:17 pm
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM (List Managers)
Message-id: <9601272151.AA05175@biome.bio.dfo.ca>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
>What is the consensus on people using sigs when posting a message to a list?
I agree with the 4-line maximum, but a more important point is that the
list owner should not have long header files on all messages. On one
list I know, the header file is so long that you have to go to the
third screen to start reading the message!
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>"If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
> If I am only for myself, what am I?
> If not now, when?"
> - Hillel
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
Too long for a signature, but good questions.
Bill
--
Bill Silvert, Habitat Ecology Section, Habitat Science Division
Bedford Institute of Oceanography, P. O. Box 1006
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CANADA B2Y 4A2
HED runs a WWW server at URL=http://hed.bio.dfo.ca
From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 27 14:43:45 1996
Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-951222-1) id OAA27727 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 14:26:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1/Miles-951221-1) with SMTP id OAA27720 for